A new tort is born: Malicious Injury to a Pet.
On May 26, 2006 Division III of the Washington State Court of Appeals created the tort of "malicious injury to a pet" allowing the owner to not only collect for the market value of the pet, but also for the owner’s emotional distress. The case is Womack v. Rardon, Docket Number 24221- 8 – III, (2006).
Three boys grabbed Ms. Womack’s cat, Max, off her front porch and took the cat to a nearby school yard where they doused the cat in gasoline and set it on fire. The cat had to be euthanized. Ms. Womack sued the boys and their parents alleging numerous theories for recovery including a claim for harassing her son. One of the parents moved for summary judgment and was able to knock out claims of private nuisance, the tort of outrage and statutory waste. That parent then settled. The other parents and boys were defaulted. The trial court held a hearing to determine damages but ruled that since he had dismissed the claims of private nuisance, outrage and statutory waste that he would not consider those for the purpose of determining damages. The trial court awarded Ms. Womack $5,000. The trial court did not make it clear what the $5,000 was for but had commented that it would consider the fair market value of a tom cat and other emotional distress. It was unclear if the emotional distress related to the cat or the harassment of the son.
Ms. Womack appealed the court’s decision to throw out the claims of private nuisance, outrage and statutory waste and also alleged that the court had not considered the emotional distress due to the injury to the cat. The appeal was unopposed. Division III of the Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal of the claims and held that the trial court had considered the emotional distress related to the cat. In addition, after distinguishing two earlier cases which had limited damages to the fair market value of the pet, the court stated: "For the first time in Washington, we hold malicious injury to a pet can support a claim for, and be considered a factor in measuring a person’s emotional distress damages. " Emotional damages cannot be claimed for negligent injury to a pet.
