 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Krasnecky v. Meffen11/12/2002
Hampshire. December 6, 2001.
Animal. Strict Liability. Emotional Distress. Negligence, Emotional distress, Causing loss of consortium. Damages, Emotional distress, Loss of consortium. Trespass.
Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on April 19, 1996.
A motion for partial summary judgment was heard by Mary-Lou Rup, J., and the case was heard by Robert H. Bohn, Jr., J.
On April 24, 1993, two dogs owned by the defendants entered onto the plaintiffs' residential property in the town of Ware and killed seven of the plaintiffs' sheep. The plaintiffs learned of these killings the next day when they returned to their home after an out-of-State trip. They later filed a complaint against the defendants in the Superior Court claiming the sheep were "companion animals" and essentially seeking damages for emotional distress and loss of companionship and society.
Procedural background. The plaintiffs' complaint, in its final amended form, contains six counts. Countá1 seeks damages for violation of G.áL. c.á140, §á155. Countá2 claims strict liability under the common law and asks for damages for emotional distress and permanent loss of the sheep, including loss of their companionship and society. The damage demand of countá2 explicitly excludes "market value or nominal damages." Countá3 is for trespass to real estate ; counts 4á& 5 are for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, respectively; and Countá6 is labeled "negligence/recklessness" and seeks the same damages as countá2.
The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment which was allowed as to counts 3, 4, andá5. After the plaintiffs refused to respond to discovery requests relating to the market value of the slain sheep, the defendants moved to prohibit the plaintiffs from offering such evidence. In the same motion, they also sought to preclude evidence of any emotional distress suffered by the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs' counsel stated that his clients did not "intend to offer any evidence of the market value of [the sheep] because they believe that they are their family members and that it is morally inappropriate for them to seek market value damages for the death of their family members." At the hearing on the motion, there was uncontroverted testimony and documentary evidence establishing that the death of the sheep caused the plaintiffs to suffer severe emotional distress and associated physical problems.
The judge decided that the plaintiffs did not have "a legally cognizable claim for emotional distress occasioned by loss" of the sheep, and accordingly allowed the motion to preclude evidence of emotional distress. Both parties then waived their right to a jury trial and submitted the case for a determination on its merits. The judge thereupon ordered that judgment enter for the plaintiffs on countá1 in the amount of one dollar and that counts 2 andá6 be dismissed. Based on those orders and the previous allowance of the defendants' motion for summary judgment, final judgment entered for the defendants on counts 2 throughá6 and for the plaintiffs in the amount of one dollar on countá1. The plaintiffs appeal, arguing that partial summary judgment should not have entered for the defendants on counts 3 andá4 and that they were entitled to non-economic damages under counts 1, 2, andá6. We affirm.
Factual background. The plaintiffs argue that the term "companion animal" is not limited to cats and dogs and that the evidence at the motion hearing established that the slain sheep were pets and "companion animals" to them. That evidence indicates that the plaintiffs regarded the sheep as their "babies" and spent six or seven hou
Page 1 2 3 4 Massachusetts Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|