Legal principle applies when pets are ‘loaned’
Dear Lawyer,
I got to know my new next-door neighbor Jane a few months ago, and we decided to save money by caring for each other’s pets when we go out of town. She has two cats and I have a small dog. Jane cared for my dog while I attended an out-of-state reunion for a week. When I returned home, Sarge had developed a huge infection on the side of his face from a cat scratch or bite, and I had to rush him to Emergency at the animal hospital. He almost lost his eye, and the vet bill was huge. I am furious at my neighbor, as she refuses to pay the vet bill. Do I have any recourse? — Steaming
Dear Steaming,
It is good to hear that Sarge is recovering from his nasty infection, and I hope you will not entrust this neighbor with a potted plant in the future!
To explain the legal nuances of this situation requires a thumbnail course in what lawyers and judges call “bailment.” This common-law term was derived from court decisions and applies to situations where property, but not ownership, is transferred. Bailment could cover the loan of an item, for example. Generally, there are no payments or contracts associated with bailments.
Under this principle, the person receiving the property has some duty to care for it, but what degree of care depends on who benefits most. If a friend allows you to park in his driveway while you are away, he owes you only an “ordinary” duty of care, since he gets no benefit from the arrangement. If you both benefit, for example if your friend is allowed to use your car, then the duty of care he owes is greater. If your friend were the only person benefitting from the bailment, as in the case that you loaned him the car, that would mandate the highest duty of care to the car.
Since companion animals are legally considered to be property in this country, these same rules apply to them. In your situation, who would benefit from the pet care arrangement? At first glance, it might appear that only you benefitted, since the neighbor got no obvious perks from caring for your dog. But since the agreement was that you would exchange pet care duties, I would say there was a mutual benefit from the arrangement, and Jane owed your dog a greater-than-ordinary degree of care. What this means in practical terms is hard to quantify, and comes down mostly to common sense.
If the cat scratch or bite that Sarge received (which may have been reasonably foreseeable when you permitted your dog to stay in a house with two cats) had been properly cared for by Jane, I doubt a court would find her responsible for the veterinary costs. She would have exercised a reasonable level of care under the circumstances. But since Jane did not address Sarge’s injury and infection quickly and appropriately, I would say she did not exercise even an ordinary duty of care, and owes you the cost of veterinary care for Sarge’s injury and recovery (not including pain and suffering, which unfortunately cannot be collected in the case of animals). If you were to pursue this in small claims court, I believe you would win.
In general, one must exercise great care when entrusting a treasured companion to the care of someone who is a casual acquaintance. Licensed, experienced pet sitters and kennels are the better choice, as they understand animal behavior and know exactly what to do in an emergency. It might cost more, but it allows you to vacation with invaluable peace of mind!
Ed Goodman worked for more than two decades as a trial lawyer in Massachusetts. A painter, screenwriter, and novelist, he lives in Corrales with partner Ennio Garcia-Miera and their six dogs, four turkeys, four chickens, and a parrot.