Anne Arundel Cty. v. Reeves, No. 68, 2021 Md. LEXIS 259 (June 7, 2021)
Recently, the Court of Appeals of Maryland held that an
owner of a beloved pet may not recover for non-economic damages such as mental
anguish or the loss of companionship.
In 2014, Officer
Rodney Price was investigating a string of burglaries in Anne Arundel County
when he was allegedly attacked by Michael Reeves’ dog, Vern. As a result,
Officer Price shot Vern and caused his death.
The Reeves’ ("dog owners") filed suit against Anne Arundel County and
Officer Price for trespass to chattel, violation of Reeves’ constitutional
rights for the unlawful shooting and seizure of Vern, and gross negligence. The
jury in trial court decided that Officer Price did commit trespass to chattel,
violated both constitutional rights regarding the unlawful shooting and
unlawful seizure of Vern, and was grossly negligent. However, the jury decided
not to award any damages for the violations of constitutional rights but did
award a total of $1,250,000 in economic and non-economic damages for gross
negligence. Additionally, the jury awarded $10,000 in economic damages for the
claim of trespass to chattel.
The circuit court decided to amend the amount in damages
by reducing the award for trespass to chattel to $7,500 due to the limit set by
Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 11-110 and decided to reduce the gross
negligence award to $200,000. Afterward, the Court of Special Appeals held that
CJP § 11-110 does not limit the amount of Reeves’ damages.
The Court of Appeals decided damages are limited to
$7,500 after reviewing the plain meaning and legislative history of CJP §
11-110. Because the statute defines compensatory damages as the fair market
value of the pet and the reasonable and necessary cost of veterinary care, the
Court of Appeals decided that meant damages were limited to these costs.
Furthermore, the Court determined that the use of the word “means” indicates
the list provided was complete and not illustrative.
Additionally, the refusal to pass bills that amended the
statute to allow for recovery of non-economic damages also indicated the
General Assembly’s desire to limit compensatory damages. Therefore, the Court
of Appeals decided to reverse the decision by the Court of Special Appeals.
On the other hand, the dissenting opinion by Judge Hotten
indicates that the majority erred in its decision to limit damages for the
loss/injury of pets. Judge Hotten recognized the connection between pets and
humans and how other states have protected this relationship by allowing non-economic
damages for the loss/injury of pets. Judge Hotten points out the idiosyncrasy of
no limit on compensatory damages on all other types of property except pets. As
Judge Hotten states, a person can kill “a beloved family dog…and pay no more
than $10,000 in damages” while a liar who “tricks a family into selling a
painting…would face uncapped…damages.”
This decision shows how Maryland courts still limit the
amount in damages that can be recovered for the loss/injury of a pet, but Judge
Hotten indicates how the value of pets in society has changed and how the
courts should follow suit.
-Jocelyn Wang, Summer Associate
No comments:
Post a Comment