In Vermont, Personal Injury Does Not Include Pet Injury

The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed on May 8, a lower court decision not to introduce non-economic damages, such as pain and suffering, into pet litigation.

In its ruling, the court explained that emotional damages are rarely permitted for injuries to others and generally not available for the loss of many close relatives. Therefore, even though pets have special characteristics as personal property and that people have unique emotional attachments to their pets, the court would not expand the law to provide recovery options for pets that are not available in many human-human relationships. To rule otherwise, the court stated, would be "a dramatic alteration to the law."

The Vermont Supreme Court joins a long line of state courts reaffirming the longstanding legal principle that emotional harm damages are not allowed in litigation over pets. In the past few years, state supreme and appellate courts in nearly thirty states have reaffirmed that emotional loss in pet injury and death cases is not compensable under any legal theory. In addition, a 2007 Gallup Poll found an overwhelming majority (63%) of Americans, including pet owners, said that pet owners should only be entitled to actual economic damages, and not pain and suffering-type awards.

See more details from Animal Health Institute.