Court rules some non-economic damages for loss of pet

In June 2025, the NY State Supreme Court in Brooklyn released a ruling that provided for non-economic damages for a family pet.

This was not a veterinary case. A woman was walking her dog on a leash, and it was hit and killed by a car.

Historically, dogs have been classified as property, and owners are typically only permitted to sue for the monetary value of the animal and any associated veterinary bills. The judge in the case set a new legal precedent and has ruled that the family is eligible for compensation typically reserved for those who have witnessed a family member getting hurt or killed. You can read more about the case in BK Mag and other publications.

The problem for veterinarians is that this lawsuit erodes the concept that pets are property. Once they are considered to be family members under the law, it could quickly lead to claims against veterinarians for emotional losses. Since these claims could be much larger, it could in turn lead to an increase in legal action against veterinarians and higher insurance rates.

Some advocates argue that these non-economic damages for pets are important to ensure full accountability for veterinary services. NYSVMS believes that the overall effect would be highly deterimental to overall pet health. It would be a strong deterrent to adopting Spectrum of Care strategies designed to reduce the cost of care, and lead to a general increase in veterinary costs that would reduce access to care for many NY pet owners.  

Veterinary Advocacy against non-economic damages

For many years, NYSVMS has opposed proposed legislation that would make non-economic damages legal. Although pet non-economic damages bills have been introduced the NY Senate and Assembly many times in the past years, they have not progressed. Non-economic damages are often discussed when we meet with law makers, and many of the key legislators understand that non-economic damages would be detrimental to overall animal health.

In the Brooklyn case, described above, the court is attempting to create new case law through issuing an opinion. The judge invited Amicus Briefs, and AVMA submitted one with our support. Amicus Brief’s are complex and expensive and AVMA usually supports State VMAs by doing the legal work required. 

It seems that the Amicus Brief was partially successful. The ruling is very narrow, and is restricted to just the situation where a pet is tethered to a family member, and highlighted that a large part of the distress experienced by the owner was from being physically present and also in danger herself. 

However, narrow rulings like this often pave the way to broader rulings. 

There will be an opportunity to appeal this ruling, and we are in contact with AVMA to see what the next steps will be.