Appellate — continued from Previous Page
Pets are considered the personal
property of their owners, and CACI No. 3903J addresses the damages that can be
recovered for injury to personal property. It states that the owner is entitled to recover the lesser of (1) the diminution
LIFE CARE PLANNER
BURNS & BACK INJURIES SPINAL CORD INJURIES HEAD TRAUMA HAND INJURIES
AMPUTATIONS CHRONIC PAIN BIRTH INJURIES MAJOR ORGANS
LIFE CARE PLANNING
Karen Luckett OTR, CHT, CLCP, CCM
Injury & Disability Expert
MEDICAL COST REPORTS DAY-IN-THE-LIFE VIDEOS IME OBSERVATIONS
injuryxpert@gmail.com LIFE CARE PLANNER
of the property’s market value; or (2) the reasonable cost of repairing the property. But the total costs of repair cannot exceed the pre-injury market value. In McMahon v. Craig (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 1502, the court held that a pet owner could not recover damages for the loss of her dog’s companionship under Civil Code section 3355, which provides that where certain property has peculiar value to a person recovering damages for dep- rivation thereof or injury thereto, that may be deemed to be its value against one who had notice thereof before incur- ring liability, or against a malicious wrongdoer. The McMahon court held that the peculiar value under section 3355 referred to a property’s unique economic value; not its sentimental or emotional value. The court held that CACI 3903J has
(310) 201-8478
(805)
no application to prevent the proof of out-of-pocket costs incurred to save a pet’s life. Rules for recovery of damages for injury to property having no market value were set in Willard v. Valley Gas & Fuel Co. (1915) 171 Cal. 9, which allowed a plaintiff to testify about the value to him of the loss of certain scrap books in his home, which he had accumulated and used in his occupation as a writer. The court held that when property has value, but not market value, the rule cannot be that the owner receives no recovery. In such cases, the property’s value “must be ascertained in some other rational way, and from such elements as are attain- able.” Here, Kimes was not plucking a number out of the air for sentimental value of Pumkin; he was seeking to pres- ent evidence of the costs incurred for Pumkin’s care and treatment after the shooting – a rational way of demonstrat- ing a measure of damages apart from the cat’s market value. In addition to the reasonable costs of
88— The Advocate Magazine JULY 2011
www.aldavlaw.com
care occasioned by the shooting, Kimes was permitted to recover punitive damages on a showing that the shooting was willful. Civil Code section 3340 permits the recov- ery of punitive damages “for wrongful injuries to animals being subjects of prop- erty, committed willfully or by gross negli- gence, in disregard of humanity.”
EXPEDITED CA
EXPEDITED CASES ACCEPTED
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104