Rego v. Madalinski
2016 Ohio 7339
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- On Nov. 23, 2014, appellant Jamie Rego’s dog was attacked and seriously injured by appellee Shawn Madalinski’s dog while visiting Madalinski’s property; veterinary bills exceeded $10,000.
- Rego sued Madalinski for damages on Apr. 1, 2015 in Toledo Municipal Court under Ohio law holding owners liable for dog-caused injury to person or property (R.C. 955.28).
- The trial court granted summary judgment to Madalinski, awarding only the dog’s agreed market value ($400) plus costs, reasoning dogs are personal property and damages are capped at fair market value.
- Rego appealed, arguing veterinary expenses should also be recoverable beyond market value.
- The Sixth District analyzed Ohio precedent and other jurisdictions, noting some Ohio cases awarded vet expenses where special attributes (pedigree, training, breeding value) or malpractice were shown, and other states have allowed veterinary cost recovery.
- The Sixth District reversed in part and remanded for a damages hearing, holding factual issues remain about recoverable damages beyond fair market value (reasonableness of veterinary expenses, pet-specific factors).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Rego) | Defendant's Argument (Madalinski) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether damages for an injured dog are limited to fair market value | Veterinary expenses incurred to treat the dog should be recoverable in addition to market value | Recovery for personal property (dogs) is limited to fair market value | Court: Not necessarily limited; factual issues exist whether vet expenses beyond market value are reasonable and recoverable |
| Proper measure of damages for companion animals | Owner may recover reasonable treatment costs given pet’s unique value | Only market-value difference before/after loss is compensable | Court: Factors beyond market value (age, pedigree, training, vet recommendation, circumstances) are relevant to damages assessment |
| Whether owner’s emotional loss or companionship damages are recoverable | Implied argument that pet loss includes sentimental value | Emotional/companion loss is not recoverable in property actions | Court: Owner’s emotions not compensable; only economic reasonableness of treatment costs considered |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate here | Factual disputes over reasonableness of veterinary expenses preclude summary judgment | Summary judgment proper because statutory classification as personal property caps damages | Court: Reversed in part; remanded for damages hearing because material fact issues remain |
Key Cases Cited
- Oberschlake v. Veterinary Assoc. Animal Hosp., 151 Ohio App.3d 741 (affirming award of damages for veterinary malpractice; distinguished noneconomic claims)
- Pacher v. Invisible Fence of Dayton, 154 Ohio App.3d 744 (business negligence/breach case affirming award of veterinary expenses tied to property injury)
- Leith v. Frost, 899 N.E.2d 635 (Ill. App.) (permitting recovery of veterinary expenses after dog attack)
- Irwin v. Degtiarov, 8 N.E.3d 296 (Mass. App.) (approving consideration of reasonableness of veterinary expenses and pet-specific factors)
- Burgess v. Shampooch Pet Indus., 131 P.3d 1248 (Kan. App.) (awarding veterinary/grooming-related damages)
- Barking Hound Village v. Monyak, 787 S.E.2d 191 (Ga.) (awarding damages including vet costs for injured pet)