Kimes v. Grosser
126 Cal. Rptr. 3d 581
Cal. Ct. App.2011Background
- Plaintiff's cat Pumkin was shot with a pellet gun on October 28, 2005, prompting emergency surgery costing $6,000 and causing partial paralysis.
- Plaintiff incurred an additional $30,000 in care expenses for Pumkin related to the injury.
- Plaintiff alleged the shooting was willful and malicious and that defendants Grosser were responsible.
- Plaintiff sued to recover care costs and seek punitive damages; defendants moved to exclude care expense evidence as having no market value impact.
- The trial court granted the motions in limine, and plaintiff then dismissed the case for failure to prosecute, based on lack of market value.
- The court's appellate reversal holds that damages may include reasonable and necessary care costs and punitive damages if willful conduct is proven.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Damages when a pet has no market value | Kimes seeks out-of-pocket care costs as damages. | Grosser argues damages limited to diminished market value of the cat. | Damages may include reasonable and necessary care costs. |
| Availability of punitive damages for willful injury | Kimes can recover punitive damages if shooting was willful. | Grosser contends punitive damages are not warranted absent willful conduct proven. | Punitive damages available if the injury was willful. |
Key Cases Cited
- Willard v. Valley Gas & Fuel Co., 171 Cal. 9 (Cal. 1915) (recover value of property with no market value via other elements of detriment)
- Zvolanek v. Bodger Seeds, Ltd., 5 Cal.App.2d 106 (Cal. App. 2d 1935) (value proof for non-market-valued property through rational elements)
- McMahon v. Craig, 176 Cal.App.4th 1502 (Cal. App. 2009) (peculiar value not including sentimental value; relevance to damages for pets)
- Pfingsten v. Westenhaver, 39 Cal.2d 12 (Cal. 1952) (cost of repairs as prima facie measure of damages in personal property cases)
- Hand Electronics, Inc. v. Snowline Joint Unified School Dist., 21 Cal.App.4th 862 (Cal. App. 1994) (cost of repair as measure of damages; burden on defendant to respond with lesser diminution)
- Dreyer v. Cyriacks, 112 Cal.App. 279 (Cal. App. 1931) (pets considered property for damages purposes)
- Roos v. Loeser, 41 Cal.App. 782 (Cal. App. 1919) (pets as property; damages framework)
- Burgess v. Shampooch Pet Industries, Inc., 131 P.3d 1248 (Kan. App. 2006) (reasonable and customary veterinary costs as damages when no market value)