Emotional Distress in Dog Attack Cases

A dog bite victim, like any other person who is physically injured by the wrongdoing of another, is presumed to have mental anguish, otherwise known as emotional distress.

Emotional distress in a physically injured adult

A dog attack can cause not only physical injuries but also emotional pain as a separate kind of harm. The victim can suffer from:

Anxiety and terror when remembering the attack
Nightmares
Fear of dogs
Anxiety about going outside
Post traumatic stress disorder (or, if it lasts long enough, post traumatic stress syndrome)

The law assumes that when someone is physically hurt, they will also feel some emotional pain as a natural reaction to what happened. But everyone is different, and sometimes people who are hurt suffer emotional pain that is much stronger and harder to handle. This means they may have intense mental suffering that is far beyond the usual reaction, causing unusual symptoms and seriously affecting their everyday lives. The legal term for this is usually “extreme and severe emotional distress.”

Such a victim may require hospitalization, have profound changes in cognitive abilities, or face severe personal and professional setbacks. Examples from cases handled by Attorney Kenneth M. Phillips include a woman who had to be hospitalized in the mental ward several times after a dog attack, another woman who lost her job as a CEO because her intelligence and functionality decreased after a dog attack, a woman whose cognitive decline made her lose 9 real estate properties and became homeless after a dog attack, a young woman who tried to kill herself and was put into a mental hospital after a dog attack, and a teenage boy who hallucinated shark-heads on people and had to be confined in a mental hospital after a dog attack.

A victim who suffers extreme and severe emotional distress from a wrongful dog attack should be compensated fairly. The claim requires solid evidence that proves the severity of the symptoms and their impact on the victim’s life. The evidence must include the testimony of the victim, his friends, family, and coworkers, the testimony of psychologists and psychiatrists who provided treatment and medication for the victim’s symptoms, and the testimony of a forensic psychologist who administered a battery of tests of the victim to prove the nature and extent of the emotional distress.

Courts are cautious with emotional distress cases, and juries can be skeptical, viewing some claims as lacking urgency, especially when trials occur years after the incident. Defendants have the right to confirm or disprove the victim’s condition or prove that the symptoms resulted from pre-existing conditions rather than the attack itself. Thus, the legal system allows defendants in these extreme cases to examine the entirety of a victim’s personal history. Defendants can explore prior issues such as depression, financial troubles, marital problems, and even deeply private matters like adoption and personal relationships. When past traumas or personal challenges are present, defendants argue that these other factors might explain the victim’s symptoms.

Additionally, the defense may use private information from the victim’s past, such as adoption status or family secrets, to gain an unfair advantage. In one instance, a defense team threatened to reveal to a 10-year-old victim that he was adopted, leading his family to withdraw the emotional distress claim to avoid the harm of this disclosure.

Ultimately, emotional distress claims in dog attack cases are challenging to pursue. Courts require clear, consistent evidence, extensive psychological support, and confirmation that the symptoms are directly caused by the attack. Because the defendants have the right to conduct a nearly unlimited investigation, these claims can be invasive and stressful, often resulting in higher litigation costs and delays.

Nevertheless, emotional distress cases can sometimes result in settlements, especially when there is irrefutable proof of severe distress. Phillips settled one case for $95,000 for a woman who suffered intense distress after being bitten and continuously harassed by her neighbor’s dogs, leading her to lose her sense of security and well-being. Such outcomes provide validation and compensation, though they often come after a lengthy and invasive legal process.

Some states have specific requirements for proving emotional distress in dog attack cases. Certain jurisdictions demand proof of physical symptoms alongside emotional trauma, while others require that the emotional distress victim was in immediate physical danger. In some cases, only immediate family members are eligible to claim emotional distress if they witnessed the attack. Each of these requirements reflects an effort to validate the severity of the distress, ensuring only significant and verifiable claims proceed.

Attorney Kenneth M. Phillips, who has handled many of these cases, explains that he only pursues extreme emotional distress claims when the evidence is overwhelmingly strong. For instance, in one case, he represented a woman who suffered a breakdown requiring hospitalization after her child was attacked by a dog. In another, he advocated for a woman repeatedly attacked by her neighbor’s dogs, leading her to experience a decline in cognitive function and a loss of confidence that affected her professionally and personally.

Phillips notes the difficulty of capturing the impact of emotional distress in court. In one case, the defense used photographs showing a smiling mother with her child after a dog attack, undermining the severity of her distress. Phillips advised the family to take photos that more accurately reflected her daily struggles, offering a more realistic picture of her suffering.

Emotional distress in a child

Children who are victims or witnesses of dog attacks often display intense emotional responses, such as fear, depression, withdrawal, and anger. These reactions may surface at once after the event or appear sometime later.

Kids process traumatic events differently than adults because of “undifferentiated thinking.” A young child might view a dog attack as a general statement about life being painful or unsafe. Some children even internalize these events as reflections of their own worth, believing they are “bad” or responsible for both their pain and the pain they see in their parents following the attack. These internalized beliefs can significantly shape their personalities as they grow, impacting them into adulthood.

Children often lose trust in adults and fear recurrence of the traumatic event. Their reactions vary by age:

Children aged five and under may experience intense separation anxiety, crying, trembling, excessive clinging, and a return to behaviors typical of younger ages, such as thumb-sucking or bedwetting. They may even show fears of the dark, and are often heavily influenced by their parents’ reactions to the trauma.
Children aged six to eleven often display symptoms like extreme withdrawal, disruptive behavior, nightmares, sleep problems, irrational fears, refusal to attend school, and sudden outbursts of anger. Some may have physical complaints, such as stomach aches, which lack medical explanations, and their schoolwork may suffer. Feelings of guilt, anxiety, and emotional numbness are also common.
Adolescents aged twelve to seventeen may react similarly to adults, with flashbacks, nightmares, depression, substance abuse, and social isolation. Suicidal thoughts, sleep disturbances, and a decline in academic performance can also occur. Adolescents may feel intense guilt for not preventing the attack and may develop revenge fantasies that impede their recovery.

Chronic conditions following trauma can include prolonged depression, grief, and PTSD.

Many children who experience such trauma develop post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) or other enduring emotional challenges. PTSD can develop at any age, and some researchers suggest younger children may be more susceptible to it. Symptoms usually emerge within three months of a traumatic event, though they can appear years later. Symptoms may include re-experiencing the event in nightmares or flashbacks, avoiding reminders of the trauma, and displaying heightened irritability, poor concentration, and regressive behaviors. The severity and duration vary: some people recover within six months, while others continue to suffer for much longer.

While PTSD sometimes resolves on its own, therapy often accelerates healing. Cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) has proven effective, teaching children strategies to manage anxiety and challenge catastrophic thoughts. For example, they may learn to avoid assuming a minor sign, such as dark clouds, indicates an impending disaster. Play and art therapies also help younger children express their trauma safely. Other therapeutic methods include group and exposure therapy.

PTSD treatment often involves six to twelve weeks of therapy, with additional sessions as needed. Support from family and friends is crucial, and early group discussions can help reduce symptoms. Parental responses, particularly from mothers, can greatly influence a child’s recovery. If a mother struggles with depression or high anxiety, she may need counseling to provide adequate support for her child.

Medication may also play a role in treating PTSD, especially for adults, helping alleviate symptoms such as sleep disturbances and intrusive thoughts. Research on medication for children with PTSD is still in its early stages, though studies suggest that combining trauma-focused therapy with medication could be beneficial.

Depression often accompanies PTSD in adolescents and requires timely treatment. Addressing both conditions concurrently improves outcomes, ensuring that children affected by dog attacks receive comprehensive care for both immediate and long-term recovery.

Emotional distress from the injury to or death of a dog

In cases involving harm to a dog, owners may seek compensation for their mental distress. Certain states have statutes that outline specific conditions and limits for recovery. Additionally, many case precedents provide further guidance on when mental distress damages may be awarded.

Case law supporting mental distress damages when a dog is injured or killed

Gonzales v. Personal Storage, Inc. (1997) addressed severe emotional distress caused by the loss of personal property. Here, a tenant experienced anguish when her belongings, valued at around $60,000, were unlawfully retained by a storage facility. The court held that damages for emotional distress caused by a defendant’s control over personal property are recoverable. This principle can apply to cases where a defendant unlawfully has control of a dog, permitting the owner to seek mental anguish damages.
In Knowles Animal Hospital, Inc. v. Wills (1978), a dog suffered severe burns after being left unattended on a heating pad at an animal hospital. The court upheld an award of $1,000 for the owner’s mental suffering.
Johnson v. Wander (1992) also involved a dog left on heating pads for an extended period, suffering severe burns. The court affirmed that the owner could receive compensation for mental suffering upon discovering the dog’s injuries and awarded punitive damages.
City of Garland v. White (1963) ruled that a police officer’s shooting of a man’s dog, a three-year-old registered boxer, justified mental pain and suffering compensation due to the emotional effects it caused the owner.
Brousseau v. Rosenthal (1980) involved a kennel that caused the death of a dog. The court acknowledged the companionship and security the plaintiff lost from the death of her companion of eight years.
In Campbell v. Animal Quarantine Station (1981), a court in Hawaii addressed a dog’s death after being left in a hot van. The court ruled that the owner did not need to witness the death to recover mental distress damages, affirming that such damages were recoverable.
Corso v. Crawford Dog and Cat Hospital, Inc. (1979) involved a dog’s funeral, during which the owners found a deceased cat in place of their dog. The court ruled that damages for mental distress were justified.
Gill v. Brown (1985) in Idaho and Rabideau v. City of Racine (2001) in Wisconsin suggest that damages for mental anguish could be awarded if a dog is unlawfully killed by someone other than a law enforcement officer acting in line with their duties.
Katsaris v. Cook (1986) held that dumping deceased dogs in a ditch, after legally euthanizing them, could lead to mental distress damages for the owner.
Kautzman v. McDonald (2001) found that police officers might be liable for negligent infliction of emotional distress if they kill a dog in circumstances where non-lethal control was possible.
LaPorte v. Associated Independents, Inc. (1964) upheld mental distress damages when a garbage disposal employee maliciously threw a garbage can at a tethered dog, resulting in its death.
In Richardson v. Fairbanks North Star Borough (1985), a city failed to follow proper euthanasia procedures for a supposedly stray dog, which was later discovered to have an owner. The court held that the owner could recover damages for emotional distress.
Tennessee has a statute (Tenn. Stats, 44-17-403) that allows for additional damages up to $4,000 for the loss of companionship if a dog is negligently killed on the owner’s property, while under a caretaker’s care, or in a caretaker’s custody.

Case law denying mental distress damages when a dog is injured or killed

In contrast, many cases and statutes limit or deny mental distress recovery:

Altieri v. Nanavati (1990) denied emotional distress damages for unwanted sterilization surgery on a dog, despite establishing veterinary malpractice.
Harabes v. Barkery, Inc. (2001) denied mental distress recovery for a dog’s death in a New Jersey groomer’s hot room.
Ivey v. Hamlin (2002) dismissed any mental distress claim where a Deputy Sheriff lawfully euthanized a dangerous dog.
Lamare v. North Country Animal League (1999) found that the adoption of a licensed dog without visible tags did not entitle the owner to emotional distress compensation.
Langford v. Emergency Pet Clinic (1994) denied recovery where a dog was buried in a mass grave against the owner’s wishes.
Miller v. Peraino (1993) ruled that emotional distress damages were not available for a dog beaten to death by a veterinarian in Pennsylvania.
In Nichols v. Sukaro Kennels (1996), the Iowa court held that damages for loss of companionship were not recoverable where a kennel owner’s dog seriously injured a boarded dog.
Roman v. Carroll (1980) and Rowbotham v. Maher (1995) both held that emotional distress damages are not recoverable for witnessing a dog’s death, as dogs are considered property under the law in Arizona and Rhode Island.
Soucek v. Banham (1994) in Minnesota, Strawser v. Wright (1992) in Ohio, and Fackler v. Genetzky (1999) in Nebraska all followed the property doctrine, denying mental distress recovery for harm to a dog.
In Texas, Zeid v. Pearce (1997) limited damages for a dog’s death to its market value or its pecuniary value in terms of services or usefulness.

Not all states allow dog owners to be compensated

Several states classify dogs strictly as property, likely preventing mental distress recovery, including Delaware, Indiana, New Mexico, Nevada, Oklahoma, Oregon, and Maryland.

In Campbell v. Animal Quarantine Station (1981), the Hawaii Supreme Court ruled that medical testimony is not required to recover emotional distress damages in cases involving injury or death of a pet. Instead, medical proof serves as an indicator of the severity of the owner’s distress. Once a court or jury finds that the distress is “serious,” the extent and duration of symptoms impact the recovery amount.

For guidance on proving claims related to a dog’s injury or death, refer to resources like When a Dog Is Injured or Killed for detailed procedures and best practices.