Under Pennsylvania law, pets are treated as personal property. Damages for harm to a pet, therefore, are generally limited to the pet's fair market value at the time of the injury or destruction. Emotional distress, loss of companionship, or pain and suffering of the pet are not recognized as recoverable damages in these types of actions.

So if someone injures or kills your pet, even if it is done maliciously, your damages will almost always be limited to the pet's fair market value.

Key Cases

In Daughen v. Fox, 372 Pa. Super. 405, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania held that a dog is personal property and rejected claims for emotional distress and loss of companionship due to the dog's death. The court emphasized that damages for the destruction of property are limited to the value of the property prior to its destruction, and sentimental attachment does not make a pet a unique piece of property under the law.

In Miller v. Peraino, 426 Pa. Super. 189, the Superior Court again reiterated that dogs are personal property under Pennsylvania law and that claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress based on a veterinarian's treatment of a dog are not actionable.

In Hoffa v. Bimes, 2008 Pa. Super. 181, the Superior Court addressed the Veterinary Immunity Act, which limits liability for veterinarians in emergency situations unless gross negligence is proven. "Gross negligence" is negligence so egregious that criminal liability could attach.

Veterinary Liability

When suing a veterinarian, claims must typically be based on negligence, and damages are limited to the actual loss suffered, such as veterinary expenses, but not exceeding the pet's value.

There are also numerous statutes that shield veterinarians and others from liability from lawsuits involving pets in certain circumstances, including protections for veterinarians participating in low-cost rabies clinics and health care facilities that allow pet therapy.