Leaving Pawprints on our Hearts: Bystander Recovery for Witnessing the Negligent Killing of a Companion Animal

Authors

• John G. Browning, Faulkner University’s Thomas Goode Jones School of Law

First Page

169

Abstract

According to the Pew Research Center, nearly all (97%) Americans with companion animals consider their “furbabies” to be members of the family. This is reflected in a number of other areas, from state and federal laws re-garding emergency management that recognize four-legged members of the family unit to divorce and custody laws in multiple states that require courts to treat companion animals not as property, but as family members. Soci-ologists and psychologists have also documented the expanding recognition of the “multispecies family.” However, the majority of states’ laws still view companion animals as chattel property, even as more and more jurisdictions allow the recovery of intangible damages for the loss of such companion ani-mals. But what about bystander recovery?

Traditional bystander recovery permits a plaintiff to recover for the emotional distress brought on by contemporaneously perceiving the death of a close family member caused by a third party’s negligence. This Article discusses an important new legal trend, as courts around the country have begun to address whether to allow bystander recovery claims for witnessing the death of a companion animal to go forward. As this Article highlights through examination of actual cases, courts nationwide have expanded the definition of “close family member” beyond the traditional norms, so why not include the four-legged members of the family? This Article offers critical insights into the legal arguments, both pro and con.

Recommended Citation

John G. Browning, Leaving Pawprints on our Hearts: Bystander Recovery for Witnessing the Negligent Killing of a Companion Animal, 31 Animal L. Rev. 169 (2025).
Available at: https://lawcommons.lclark.edu/alr/vol31/iss2/4