Skip to the main content.
Free Case Review




green lock security thumb

green lock security thumb



green lock security thumb

green lock security thumb



1 min read

Pet Injury Lawsuit: Assessing Damages for Injury to Personal Property

small dog at the vet's office being medically examined by a veterinarian

In a legal battle, Blue Pearl Veterinary Partners, LLC finds itself in a dispute with Kristine Anderson, a pet owner. Anderson claims that her dog sustained an injury while under the care of Blue Pearl. The dispute was over whether Anderson can recover veterinary expenses that exceed the fair market value of her dog.

Recovering Veterinary Expenses: Anderson's Case and Precedent Rulings

When it comes to assessing damages for injury to personal property, there exists a general rule that involves comparing the fair market value of the property both before and after the incident. By subtracting the post-loss fair market value from the pre-injury value, a baseline for damages can be established. However, exceptions to this rule arise under certain circumstances. One exception arises when repair costs for the property are lesser than the diminution in market value. In such cases, courts take into account the goal of compensating for the injury or loss suffered. The general damages rules serve as a guideline rather than a rigid framework. With this principle in mind, the court of appeals proceeded with assessing Anderson's case.

Anderson's claim rests on recovering veterinary expenses that exceed the fair market value of her injured dog. The court of appeals inspected similar cases and echoed rulings from Massachusetts and Virginia, which support the notion that reasonable and necessary veterinary expenses can be recovered, even if they surpass the diminution in the animal's market value. An element of the court's decision pertained to the determination of what constituted reasonable and necessary expenses. In this issue, the court deemed it a question best left to the fact finder. 

The Court's Ruling

Ultimately, the court of appeals upheld the trial court's ruling, which denied Blue Pearl's motion to exclude evidence of veterinary expenses that exceed the price Anderson initially paid for her dog. By doing so, the court emphasizing that damages should genuinely encompass the injury suffered by the pet in question.

The court of appeals' examination of Blue Pearl Veterinary Partners, LLC's dispute with Kristine Anderson sheds light on the complexities of determining damages for injury to personal property, particularly in the context of veterinary expenses. By acknowledging exceptions to the general rule and underscoring the importance of reasonable and necessary costs, the court fosters a balanced approach to compensating pet owners who have experienced harm while their animals were under professional care.