Medlen v. Strickland
353 S.W.3d 576
Tex. App.2011Background
- Dog Avery escaped from Medlens' yard on June 2, 2009 and was held at animal control; a
- hold for owner
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether intrinsic or sentimental damages for the loss of a dog are recoverable | Medlens: yes | Strickland: no | Yes; intrinsic/sentimental damages are recoverable so long as dog has sentimental value |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Tyler v. Likes, 962 S.W.2d 489 (Tex. 1997) (recovery of sentimental value for items with little market value permitted)
- Porras v. Craig, 675 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. 1984) (adopts intrinsic value rule for property with sentimental value)
- Brown v. Frontier Theatres, Inc., 369 S.W.2d 299 (Tex. 1963) (awarded sentimental damages for loss of personal property)
- Arrington v. Arrington, 613 S.W.2d 565 (Tex.Civ.App.-Fort Worth 1981) (dog as personal property)
- Heiligmann v. Rose, 81 Tex. 222, 16 S.W. 931 (Tex. 1891) (dog's value may be market or special/pecuniary value; may include owner attachment)
- Petco Animal Supplies, Inc. v. Schuster, 144 S.W.3d 554 (Tex.App.-Austin 2004) (sentimental value for loss of companionship limited to companion value, not wages/mental anguish)
- Zeid v. Pearce, 953 S.W.2d 368 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1997) (pain/mental anguish for lost pet generally not recoverable; reiterates Heiligmann framework)
- Bueckner v. Hamel, 886 S.W.2d 368 (Tex.App.-Houston (1st Dist.) 1994) (discusses pecuniary value and special value of pets; supports sentimental value concept)
- Redmon v. Redmon, 43 S.W.2d 266 (Tex.Civ.App.-Beaumont 1931) (sentimental value not recoverable in early view; cited by later courts)