McDougall v. Lamm
211 N.J. 203
| N.J. | 2012Background
- McDougall seeks emotional-distress damages for witnessing her dog Angel’s death, arguing pets deserve special status beyond property.
- Portee v. Jaffee established a narrow bystander emotional-distress claim with four elements, including a close relationship.
- Trial court dismissed emotional-distress claim, treating dogs as property and limiting damages to intrinsic/dog value; awarded $5,000 for loss of dog’s value and training.
- Appellate Division affirmed, declining to recognize a Portee-like claim for death of a pet, citing framework and public-policy concerns.
- NJ Supreme Court agrees to review to decide if Portee extends to pets, considering foreseeability, public policy, and compatibility with statutes.
- Court ultimately holds that pets do not meet the necessary intimate-familial relationship or public-policy criteria to expand Portee; decision affirms dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Portee extends to bystander recovery for a pet's death | McDougall argues pets can be close with owners, warranting Portee-like relief. | Lamm argues pets are property; Portee should not expand to animals. | No; Portee not extended to pets. |
| Whether recognizing a pet-emotional-distress claim aligns with Wrongful Death Act | Wrongful Death Act should not preclude non-human emotional distress recovery. | Statutes cap recovery to pecuniary losses and do not support non-economic damages for pets. | Conflict with Wrongful Death Act; expansion rejected. |
| Whether public policy weighs against expanding Portee to pets | Public policy should deter irresponsible pet ownership by allowing recovery. | Expansion would create flood of litigation and definitional/detectability problems. | Public policy discourages expansion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Portee v. Jaffee, 84 N.J. 88 (1980) (establishes four-element Portee framework for bystander emotional distress)
- Dunphy v. Gregor, 261 N.J. Super. 110 (1992) (limits/intensifies analysis of intimate relationships under Portee)
- Jablonowska v. Suther, 195 N.J. (2008) (2008) (addresses physical-injury threshold and Portee distinction)
- Kelly v. Gwinnell, 96 N.J. 538 (1984) (framework for evaluating expansion of tort remedies; public policy focus)
- Caputzal v. Lindsay Co., 48 N.J. 69 (1966) (zone-of-risk approach to emotional distress)