Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, the world has experienced immense loss: loss of normalcy, loss of human interaction, and loss of good health to name a few. For an estimated twenty-three million American households, however, it was also a time of something gained. Many families celebrated a new, four-legged family member—a pandemic pet. American pet ownership reached new highs during the pandemic with over ninety million households owning pets by early 2022. Of those ninety million households, sixty-nine million own dogs, making dogs the most common household pet. These record-breaking numbers demonstrate society’s shared sentiment that pets bring us comfort and companionship, especially during troubling times.
Accordingly, Minnesota’s current rule addressing harm to pets—which is based on the legal classification of pets as personal property—must be changed. The 136-year-old “fair market value” rule provides that when a pet is negligently or intentionally harmed, its owner is only entitled to recover the diminished market value of the pet, or the cost of restoring the pet to its pre-injury condition, whichever amount is less. Using the market value of a pet to assess damages is wholly inadequate because today, unlike historically, most domestic pets are kept for companionship rather than for utility or economic purposes. Under this antiquated law, the original purchase price of a pet is generally the maximum amount its owner can recover when a pet is negligently or intentionally injured. Consequently, when tortious injury occurs, pet owners are often faced with a difficult decision: obtain adequate medical treatment for their pet and risk bearing all veterinary expenses, or make an economical decision, opt out of treatment, and watch their pet suffer or die. Minnesota’s fair market value rule has far-reaching, real-world implications, and it must be reformed to provide fair and adequate compensation for victims of tortious conduct.
Part II of this Note begins by explaining the century-old rule that governs how Minnesota measures damages for injuries to pets and then illustrates the rule’s impact on pets and their owners. It introduces readers to Jack, Jakey, and their human families who were all harmed by another’s wrongful act, yet have not received adequate justice due to the harsh implications of the rule. Part III describes the historical background of how animals are treated under Minnesota law. It discusses the common law legal classification of animals as personal property and how this classification has lost its functionality in modern society. It then details the formation of Minnesota’s fair market value rule and provides a historical analysis of Minnesota state court decisions that have consistently reaffirmed this rule, regardless of major changes in society and other areas of the law. Part IV identifies other approaches to assessing damages for negligent injuries to pets. It addresses how many states have evolved to adopt modernized rules, either through judicial interpretation of the law or by way of the legislature. It proposes a solution that will more fairly compensate pet owners and improve the quality of life for pets. In sum, this Note suggests that if a pet is injured by a tortfeasor, the owner should be able to recover damages for (1) the cost of any reasonable veterinary care that is administered to restore the pet’s health, (2) noneconomic damages for the infliction of emotional distress, and (3) punitive damages.