Roman v. Carroll--"The Dismembered Poodle" | 621 P2d 307 | December 19, 1980 | Scott Soloway

H2O

This is the old version of the H2O platform and is now read-only. This means you can view content but cannot create content. You can access the new platform at https://opencasebook.org. Thank you.

Roman v. Carroll--"The Dismembered Poodle"

Original Creator: Jonathan Zittrain Current Version: Scott Soloway
Should people be allowed to recover for the emotional distress they feel when their pets are injured? EDIT ANNOTATED ITEM INFORMATION DELETE ANNOTATED ITEM
1
127 Ariz. 398 (1980)
2
621 P.2d 307
3

Jane ROMAN, Plaintiff/Appellant,
v.
Robert CARROLL and Grace Carroll, husband and wife, Defendants/Appellees.

4
No. 2 CA-CIV 3748.
5

Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 2.

6
December 19, 1980.
7

Law Offices of O'Neill & Martin by J. Dan O'Neill, Tucson, for plaintiff/appellant.

8

Slutes, Browning, Zlaket & Sakrison, P.C., by Mark R. Riegel, Tucson, for defendants/appellees.

9

399*399 OPINION

10

RICHMOND, Judge.

11

The question on this appeal is whether a plaintiff can recover damages for emotional distress she suffered from watching defendants' St. Bernard dismember plaintiff's poodle while she was walking the dog near her home. The poodle died two days later. In her action for damages, plaintiff/appellant alleges that she suffered severe emotional shock from witnessing the incident and that, at the time, she considered herself in danger of attack by the St. Bernard. She appeals from a summary judgment denying her damages for emotional distress.[1]

12

Appellant contends that she is entitled to a trial on the question of damages for negligent infliction of emotional distress because her relationship with her pet poodle was a close one within the meaning of Keck v. Jackson, 122 Ariz. 114, 593 P.2d 668 (1979). The supreme court in Keck held that under certain circumstances a person may recover damages for negligent infliction of emotional distress caused by witnessing injury to a third person. A dog, however, is personal property. A.R.S. ยง 1-215(25); State v. Hernandez, 121 Ariz. 544, 592 P.2d 378 (App. 1979). Damages are not recoverable for negligent infliction of emotional distress from witnessing injury to property. See, e.g., State v. Baltimore Transit Co., 197 Md. 528, 80 A.2d 13, 28 A.L.R.2d 1062 (App. 1951).

13

Affirmed.

14

HATHAWAY, C.J., and HOWARD, J., concur.

16

[1] The parties stipulated to a judgment of $1,000 "for any and all damages claimed ... for veterinarian expenses, burial expenses, value of dog and punitive damages."

Close

Annotated Case Information

March 09, 2018

"Roman v. Carroll"

Author Stats

Scott Soloway

business lawyer practicing law

Boston

Expand
Leitura Garamond Futura Verdana Proxima Nova Dagny Web
small medium large extra-large