Source: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-court-of-appeal/1569372.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 03:03:38+00:00

Document:
Court of Appeal, First District, California.
KEVIN KIMES, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CHARLES GROSSER et al., Defendants and Respondents.
ATTORNEYS: Law Offices of Michael T. Morrissey, Michael T. Morrissey for Plaintiff and Appellant. Cholakian & Associates, Kevin K. Cholakian and Colin Hatcher for Defendants and Respondents.
A defendant neighbor allegedly shot plaintiff's pet cat. To save the cat's life, plaintiff incurred substantial bills. The trial court dismissed the case on the grounds that plaintiff would be unable to prove the value of the cat exceeded the costs of “repair.” In this appeal, we are called upon to determine what damages can be awarded for a wrongful injury to a pet animal with little market value under these circumstances. We hold that the owner can recover the costs of care of the pet attributable to the injury if the costs are found to be reasonable and necessary, and punitive damages if the injury is found to be intentional. Based on these conclusions, we reverse the judgment dismissing the case.
Plaintiff Kevin Kimes alleges as follows: His pet cat Pumkin was shot with a pellet gun on October 28, 2005, while perched on a fence between his property and that of defendants Charles Grosser et al. Emergency surgery costing $6,000 saved Pumkin's life, but left Pumkin partially paralyzed, and plaintiff incurred an additional $30,000 in expenses caring for Pumkin because of the injury. Plaintiff contends the shot that wounded Pumkin was fired from defendants' backyard, and defendants Charles or Joseph Grosser were responsible for the “willful[ ] and malicious[ ]” shooting.
Dismissals under Code of Civil Procedure section 583.410 are generally reviewed for abuse of discretion (Howard v. Thrifty Drug & Discount Stores (1995) 10 Cal.4th 424, 429), but this appeal raises issues of law as to the damages recoverable for injury to a pet like Pumkin, which are subject to our independent review (see Crocker National Bank v. City and County of San Francisco (1989) 49 Cal.3d 881, 888).
Defendants' motions in limine were based primarily on Judicial Council of California Civil Jury Instructions (Spring 2011 ed.) CACI No. 3903J, and the decision in McMahon v. Craig (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 1502 (McMahon ).
Based on the foregoing authorities, defendants argued that plaintiff could recover no more than Pumkin's economic value, and that evidence of the expenses of caring for Pumkin should be excluded as “completely irrelevant to this case.” In personal property cases, plaintiffs are entitled to present evidence of the cost of repairs even in cases where recovery is limited to the lost market value of property. (Pfingsten v. Westenhaver (1952) 39 Cal.2d 12, 24.) The cost of repairs constitutes a prima facie measure of damages, and it is the defendant's burden to respond with proof of a lesser diminution in value. (Ibid.) However, it is not disputed that the cost of “repairing” Pumkin exceeded Pumkin's market value. Thus, any error in granting the motions in limine on the ground that Pumkin had negligible market value was harmless if that value capped plaintiff's recovery.
As we now explain, the rule in CACI No. 3903J has no application in this case to prevent proof of out-of-pocket expenses to save the life of a pet cat.
In this case, plaintiff is not plucking a number out of the air for the sentimental value of damaged property; he seeks to present evidence of costs incurred for Pumpkin's care and treatment by virtue of the shooting—a “rational way” of demonstrating a measure of damages apart from the cat's market value. (Willard, supra, 171 Cal. at p. 16.) That evidence is admissible as proof of plaintiff's compensable damages, and the trial court erred in granting the motions to exclude it. (See also Evid.Code, § 823 [“the value of property for which there is no relevant, comparable market may be determined by any method of valuation that is just and equitable”].) Plaintiff is entitled to have a jury determine whether the amounts he expended for Pumkin's care because of the shooting were reasonable.
Under Civil Code section 3333 plaintiff may present evidence of the bills incurred to save the cat's life and is entitled to recover the reasonable and necessary costs caused by someone who wrongfully injured the cat. Defendants are entitled to present evidence why the costs were unreasonable under the circumstances.
FN1. Plaintiff is not seeking damages for emotional distress.. FN1. Plaintiff is not seeking damages for emotional distress.
FN2. Unless otherwise indicated, subsequent statutory references are to the Civil Code.. FN2. Unless otherwise indicated, subsequent statutory references are to the Civil Code.
FN3. Plaintiff is not seeking loss of companionship, unique noneconomic value, or the emotional value of the cat, but rather the costs incurred as a result of the shooting.. FN3. Plaintiff is not seeking loss of companionship, unique noneconomic value, or the emotional value of the cat, but rather the costs incurred as a result of the shooting.
FN4. Willard was disapproved on another ground in Showalter v. Western Pacific R.R. Co. (1940) 16 Cal.2d 460, 465467.. FN4. Willard was disapproved on another ground in Showalter v. Western Pacific R.R. Co. (1940) 16 Cal.2d 460, 465467.
We concur: Margulies, J. Dondero, J.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 823
 v. 
 v.