Blue Pearl Veterinary Partners, LLC v. Anderson, Record No. 1180-22-1 (Jul. 11, 2023)
In this short opinion, the Court of Appeals determines the elements of damages that can be recovered for injury to a pet.
Facts. Kristine Anderson sought damages from several veterinary defendants (together, Blue Pearl) for injuries her dog sustained while receiving veterinary treatment from them. She asked for reimbursement of treatment for the dog’s injuries as well as future rehabilitative care. Blue Pearl filed a motion in limine to exclude any claim for damages exceeding the market value of the dog. They argued that the dog was personal property, therefore, like all personal property, “repair expenses” were limited to the diminution in value of the dog. Anderson argued that veterinary expenses were “reasonable and necessary costs,” and thus recoverable. The trial court agreed with her but certified its ruling for interlocutory review, and the Court of Appeals granted the Petition.
Issue. Whether, in an action for injury to a pet, the pet owner can recover veterinary expenses that exceed the diminution of the pet’s fair market value.
Holding. Yes. An owner can recover for veterinary expenses that the owner can prove are reasonably and necessarily incurred because of the defendant’s negligence.
Notes. The general rule for determining damages for injury to personal property is to subtract the fair market value of the property immediately after the loss from the fair market value immediately before the injury. That difference, together with “necessary reasonable expenses incurred,” are the recoverable damages. But this rule is subordinate to the principle that damages are intended to “make good” the loss suffered. Whether veterinary care and treatment are “reasonable and necessary” is therefore a question of fact to be decided by a jury.