Tort/Negligence – Emotional Distress Damages for Harm to Pets – Personal Property

Listen to this article

Emotional distress damages are not available for harm to pets, as they are legally considered personal property, while leaving open the possibility of recovering other property-related damages.

We affirmed partial summary judgment in favor of Dog Daze of Charleston LLC and its owner.

Plaintiff brought an action following the death of her pet dog, Xumi, and the injury of her dog, Ruben. She sought damages for emotional distress as well as other claims including negligence, bailment, and breach of contract. The circuit court had ruled that South Carolina law does not permit recovery of emotional distress damages for harm to pets, which are legally classified as personal property, although the ruling did not address other categories of damages Plaintiff claimed.

We applied the same standard of review as the circuit court under Rule 56(c) of the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure, granting summary judgment only when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Historically, South Carolina courts have treated pets as personal property, a classification dating back to State v. Langford (1899) in the context of larceny. Consequently, damages for injury to pets are generally limited to the difference in market value before and after the harm, a standard reflected in cases like Coleman v. Levkojf (1924). Plaintiff contended that this measure fails to account for the emotional distress caused by the loss or injury of a beloved pet.

We recognized Plaintiff’s argument but noted that prior unpublished appellate decisions in 2005 and 2023 reached the same conclusion, reinforcing that emotional distress claims are not available for harm to pets under South Carolina law. We also cited federal district court precedent in Madden v. Petland Summerville (2022), confirming that damages are limited to pecuniary losses and the market value of the dog. While Plaintiff and the Animal Legal Defense Fund urged us to recognize the modern view of pets as family members, South Carolina law continues to follow the majority rule in other jurisdictions, which generally do not allow emotional distress damages for harm to pets unless the conduct causing the harm is intentional or malicious, a standard not alleged here.

Plaintiff also argued for consideration of the “special value” of her pets, including companionship and emotional support, as part of property damage. This issue was not part of the partial summary judgment, as the paragraphs in her complaint addressing sentimental value and loss of companionship were not explicitly included in the ruling. Therefore, the question of whether “special value” can be considered in calculating property damages remains open for the circuit court.

South Carolina law treats pets as personal property, the national trend limits emotional distress damages for pet injury, and any expansion of remedies should come from legislative action rather than judicial intervention. We declined to create a new common law cause of action. The decision leaves intact the potential for Plaintiff to pursue other claims and damages for her pets’ actual or special value.

Affirmed.

Rock v. Dog Daze of Charleston LLC (Lawyers Weekly No. 001-008-26, 5 pp.) (Per Curiam) Appealed from Charleston County Circuit Court (George M. McFaddin, Jr., J.) Michael J. Jordan, of The Steinberg Law Firm, LLP, of Goose Creek; and Frederick Elliotte Quinn, IV, of The Steinberg Law Firm, LLP, of North Charleston, both for Appellant. David Starr Cobb, of Turner Padget Graham & Laney, PA, of Charleston; and Warren W. Wills, III, of Law Office of W. Westbrook Wills, III, of Folly Beach, both for Respondents. Christian Suarez, of Cotati, CA; and Daniel R. Fuerst, of Moore & Van Allen, PLLC, of Charleston, for Amicus Curiae Animal Legal Defense Fund. South Carolina Court of Appeals