The Restatement of Torts and Recovery for Loss of the Human-Pet Bond Aftern an Intentional Tort

Authors

Merle H. Weiner

Abstract

Owners1 of pets2 are often unable to recover for the loss of the human-pet bond when their pets are tortiously injured or killed. However, empirical research confirms the owners may experience the loss as real harm.3 Pets have an especially important role in a “stressful and frenetic” world characterized by unstable family relationships.4 Indeed, a 2015 Harris Poll found that 95% of American dog and cat owners regard their pets as family members.5 This Article seeks to explain why some courts refuse to allow recovery for loss of the human-pet bond even in cases involving intentional torts, such as conversion or trespass to chattels. Much of the explanation rests with the Restatement of Torts.6 The first and second iterations of the Restatement of Torts increased the obstacles pet owners encountered when they sought recovery for emotional harm after an intentional tort. This fact contradicts the common understanding that tort law was expanding during much of the twentieth century,7 and that tort law affords make-whole relief to achieve corrective justice.8 While a recent provision in the Restatement (Third) of Torts: Remedies makes clear that such recovery is in fact permissible,9 this Article explains why the new section may have little effect and what should be done to further clarify the law in this area Part II briefly describes the law today. It explains that many states, but not all, allow damages for injury to the human-pet bond when a pet is intentionally harmed. Those that allow recovery either recognize parasitic damages for an intentional tort to property (such as conversion or trespass to chattels) or require the plaintiff to prove the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”). Few states allow recovery for the owner’s emotional distress when the harm is negligently inflicted. Courts that deny recovery use the law of remedies to limit the measure of damages and/or constrain liability with restrictive claims. Part III then recounts how this legal landscape developed, focusing particularly on recovery for loss of the human-pet bond after an intentional tort.

Recommended Citation

Weiner, Merle H. (2025) "The Restatement of Torts and Recovery for Loss of the Human-Pet Bond Aftern an Intentional Tort," University of Memphis Law Review: Vol. 55: Iss. 3, Article 1.
Available at: https://digitalcommons.memphis.edu/um-law-review/vol55/iss3/1