Robert Repin v. State of Washington and Washington State University
198 Wash. App. 243
| Wash. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Owner Robert Repin brought Kaisa, his terminally ill Alaskan Malamute, to WSU Veterinary Teaching Hospital and signed a consent form authorizing humane euthanasia.
- During the procedure, vets administered acepromazine then Euthasol; Kaisa reacted painfully after the first Euthasol injection and struggled for several minutes until a second injection was given and she died.
- Dispute of facts: Repin contends the catheter was damaged, not properly flushed, a student performed injections or the vet left to retrieve more drug, and a perivascular injection caused conscious pain; hospital staff deny some of these assertions and report flushing and prompt completion of euthanasia.
- Repin sued WSU and Dr. Margaret Cohn‑Urbach asserting breach of contract (and a separate reckless breach), professional negligence, lack of informed consent/negligent misrepresentation by omission, intentional or reckless infliction of emotional distress (outrage), and conversion/trespass to chattels.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants on multiple claims and ruled Repin could not recover emotional distress damages for contract or under several tort theories; the Court of Appeals affirmed those rulings and left remaining negligence and contract claims to proceed without noneconomic damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Recoverability of noneconomic (emotional) damages for breach of contract / "reckless breach" | Repin: emotional distress from a veterinarian’s breach of a euthanasia contract is foreseeable; reckless breach should permit noneconomic damages and avoid the release | WSU: Washington law generally bars emotional-distress damages for contract breaches; no separate "reckless breach" cause recognized | Court: No recovery for emotional distress on breach of contract under current WA law; reckless breach label not recognized to obtain noneconomic damages; contract claim remains limited to economic damages |
| Zone of danger / negligent bystander recovery from witnessing veterinary malpractice | Repin: he was in the zone of danger while restraining Kaisa and thus may recover noneconomic damages without objective medical symptoms | WSU: zone-of-danger should not extend to medical/veterinary malpractice bystanders; Repin did not present fear of physical injury to himself | Court: zone-of-danger not applicable here; Repin presented no evidence he feared for his own physical safety, so cannot recover under that theory |
| Negligent infliction of emotional distress / requirement of objective symptomatology | Repin: alternatively entitled to negligent infliction recovery for witnessing traumatic death | WSU: plaintiff must show objective symptomatology (medical proof) and his claim fails on that element; some WA cases bar pet-loss emotional damages | Court: Dismissed for lack of objective symptom evidence; plaintiff did not present medical proof of diagnosable emotional injury |
| Outrage (IIED), conversion, informed consent, negligent misrepresentation by omission | Repin: conduct was outrageous, amounted to conversion of his property (Kaisa) and defendants omitted material risk disclosures | WSU: conduct at worst was negligence/gross negligence, not intentional or outrageous; owner consented to euthanasia, no precedent for informed-consent or negligent-misrepresentation claims in vet context; conversion requires dispossession | Court: Summary judgment affirmed — no outrageous conduct as a matter of law; conversion/trespass claims fail (owner retained possession; no hostile assertion of title); Washington does not currently recognize an informed-consent cause of action against veterinarians nor negligent-misrepresentation by omission in this context |
Key Cases Cited
- Gaglidari v. Denny’s Restaurants, Inc., 117 Wn.2d 426 (Wash. 1991) (general rule barring emotional‑distress damages for breach of contract; narrow exceptions discussed)
- Hendrickson v. Tender Care Animal Hospital Corp., 176 Wn. App. 757 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013) (refusal to allow emotional‑distress recovery for pet owner after veterinary care led to pet’s death)
- Kloepfel v. Bokor, 149 Wn.2d 192 (Wash. 2003) (elements for intentional infliction of emotional distress; discussion of objective symptomatology requirement for negligent infliction)
- Murphy v. City of Tacoma, 60 Wn.2d 603 (Wash. 1962) (adoption of zone‑of‑danger rule for bystander emotional‑distress recovery)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (summary-judgment standard: nonmoving party must present evidence on essential elements)
- Sherman v. Kissinger, 146 Wn. App. 855 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008) (discusses limits on emotional‑distress recovery for pet owners; addresses conversion and veterinary malpractice claims)