In Strickland v. Medlen, Case No. 12-0047, the Texas Supreme Court on January 10, 2013, confirmed the 122 year-old precedent that pets are property for tort-law purposes, and there can be no recovery for noneconomic damages rooted solely in emotional attachment to the pet. The Second Court of Appeals had found a right of recovery, but the Supreme Court reversed and remanded for entry of judgment in favor of the defendant. While acknowledging that Texas law does provide for recovery of noneconomic damages for loss of other types of personal property, such as family heirlooms (pistols, jewelry, and hand-made bedspreads, for example), the instrinsic value of felled trees (even though removing the trees may have increased the property's market value) and sentimental value of personal items destroyed when a home is flooded, the Court distinguished "intrinsic value" from "mental anguish" damages and found that there could be no recovery for a beloved family pet wrongfully euthanized.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
