holding that veterinarian's unsuccessful attempt at euthanasia, failure to warn of risks, and the dog's immense suffering not sufficiently outrageous
How later courts described this case
- holding that veterinarian's unsuccessful attempt at euthanasia, failure to warn of risks, and the dog's immense suffering not sufficiently outrageous
- denying emotional distress damages for claim that veterinarian 14 breached euthanasia contract when euthanizing plaintiff’s dog
- recognizing trespass to chattels cause of action
- recognizing trespass to chattels cause of ction
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Lawrence-Berrey, J.
¶114 (concurring) — Current law that requires dismissal should not be judicially changed. To subject veterinarians to a claim for a pet owner’s emotional distress damages would have profound societal effects. It would likely put many veterinarians out of business, it would sharply increase veterinarian bills for pet owners, and it would result in veterinarians refusing to perform emergency operations.
¶115 Our concurring brother dismisses these concerns, in part, by noting how well physicians have adjusted to increased damage awards. Increased damage awards against physicians are funded by increased medical insurance rates, which in turn are funded by several millions of *287 people who pay medical insurance. Pet owners, however, pay veterinarian bills from their pockets. Because pet owners generally do not (or cannot) buy pet insurance, increased veterinarian costs cannot be funded in the same manner as increased physician costs. We are confident that veterinarians would not fare as well as physicians if Washington was to permit recovery of emotional damages for pet owners. Nevertheless, we should leave it for the legislature to weigh the benefits and costs of such a rule. See Gaglidari v. Denny’s Rests., Inc., 117 Wn.2d 426, 448 , 815 P.2d 1362 (1991).
Korsmo, J., concurs with Lawrence-Berrey, J.
Review denied at 188 Wn.2d 1023 (2017).