La Porte v. Associated Indeps., Inc. - 163 So. 2d 267 (Fla. 1964)

Rule:

Without indulging in a discussion of the affinity between "sentimental value" and "mental suffering," the affection of a master for his dog is a very real thing, and the malicious destruction of a pet provides an element of damage for which the owner should recover, irrespective of the value of the animal because of its special training such as a seeing eye dog or sheep dog.

Facts:

Respondent Associated Independents, Inc. was a corporation engaged in the business of collecting garbage. Among its customers was petitioner Phyllis La Porte. Early one morning, when a garbage collector came for the refuse, the garbage man empty the can and hurled it in the direction of petitioner’s dog, Heidi, a miniature dachshund. Upon hearing her pet yelp, the petitioner went outside to find Heidi injured. The collector laughed and left. Heidi expired from the blow. Petitioner then brought an action for damages against respondent. The trial court submitted the element of mental suffering to the jury for their consideration in assessing damages. The petitioner was awarded a verdict of $2,000. The subsequent judgment was appealed to the District Court of Appeal, Second District, and there reversed for reconsideration not of the issue of liability, but for determination only of compensatory and punitive damages. Petitioner appealed. The Court granted petitioner a writ of certiorari.

Issue:

1. Was the element of mental suffering properly submitted to the jury for their consideration in assessing damages?
2. Was the award of punitive damages in favor of petitioner proper?

Answer:

1) Yes. 2) Yes.

Conclusion:

The Court quashed the appellate court's judgment with directions that the judgment of the trial court was to be reinstated. In rejecting respondent's claim that the element of mental suffering was improperly submitted to the jury for its consideration in assessing damages, the court ruled that, without indulging in a discussion of the affinity between "sentimental value" and "mental suffering," the affection of a master for his dog was a very real thing and that the malicious destruction of a pet provided an element of damage for which the owner was entitled to recover, irrespective of the value of the animal because of its special training, such as a seeing eye dog. The Court further ruled that punitive damages were warranted because respondent's employee, who threw a trash can at the dog and laughed after the animal was struck by it, was malicious and demonstrated an extreme indifference to petitioner's rights.