Irwin v. Degtiarov, 85 Mass. App. Ct. 234

Plaintiffs' dog Peppermint was attacked by unleashed dogs, causing severe internal injuries and external wounds.
Emergency veterinary surgery was performed; total damages for care exceeded $8,000.
Judgment awarded the veterinary costs as reasonable and necessary; the Appellate Division affirmed.
Massachusetts G. L. c. 140, § 155 imposes strict liability for damage caused by dogs, regardless of fault.
Section does not specify damages measurement; common law governs the damages, including veterinary costs.
Court held reasonable veterinary expenses may be recovered even if they exceed the dog’s market value.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Measuring damages for dog injury under §155	Irwin/Irwins contend veterinary costs are recoverable if reasonable.	Defendants argue damages capped by animal's market value.	Reasonable veterinary costs recoverable; not limited to market value.
Role of market value in veterinary-cost damages	Market value may be considered but not dispositive.	Market value should cap recovery when costs exceed it.	Market value is a factor, but not a sole limit on reasonable costs.

Trinity Church v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co., 399 Mass. 43 (Mass. 1987) (replacement/restoration may substitute for market value when appropriate)
Atwood v. Boston Forwarding & Transfer Co., 185 Mass. 557 (Mass. 1904) (reasonableness governs recovery of veterinary costs)
Uhlein v. Cromack, 109 Mass. 273 (Mass. 1872) (dog/injury damages treated as property damage)
Munn v. Reed, 4 Allen 431 (Mass. 1862) (statute expands remedy for dog-related injuries)
Krasnecky v. Meffen, 56 Mass. App. Ct. 418 (Mass. App. Ct. 2002) (affirms consideration of affections but limits recovery for pain/feelings)
Massachusetts Port Authy. v. Sciaba Constr. Corp., 54 Mass. App. Ct. 509 (Mass. App. Ct. 2002) (market-failure or replacement considerations in value measures)