Source: https://www.animallaw.info/case/mcmahon-v-craig
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 04:14:35+00:00

Document:
*1 Plaintiff Gail McMahon sued defendants Diane Craig, D.V.M., Veterinary Surgical Specialists, Inc., and Advanced Veterinary Specialty Group, LLC, for, inter alia, veterinary malpractice and intentional infliction of emotional distress after McMahon's dog died while in defendants' care. McMahon contends the trial court erred in sustaining defendants' demurrer to her intentional infliction of emotional distress cause of action and in striking portions of her complaint seeking damages for emotional distress and loss of companionship.
We conclude the trial court did not err. McMahon's complaint alleges defendants negligently rendered veterinary care and lied to cover-up their malpractice. None of defendant's alleged conduct, however, is so extreme or outrageous to support a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Emotional distress damages for negligence are not available to McMahon because she was neither a witness nor a direct victim of defendants' negligent acts. Finally, McMahon cannot recover damages for loss of companionship based on her dog's peculiar value to her. “[P]eculiar value” under Civil Code section 3355 refers to an item's characteristics that enhance its economic value to the owner, and does not include the owner's emotional attachment to it. Accordingly, we affirm.
When Tootsie was two years old, she began to show signs of respiratory distress, which was diagnosed as laryngeal paralysis. Around age five, Tootsie's problem became severe and interfered with the quality of her life. In December 2004, McMahon met with Craig, a doctor of veterinary medicine and a surgeon at the hospital. Craig confirmed the laryngeal paralysis diagnosis and recommended corrective surgery, in which Craig would tie back one of the two laryngeal folds in Tootsie's throat to open the airway and increase respiration. During presurgical consultations, McMahon told Craig about Tootsie's history, described her strong bond with Tootsie, and explained she would do whatever she could, regardless of cost, to help the animal. By letter, McMahon's friend told Craig about the special bond McMahon had with Tootsie, and McMahon's extensive efforts to have Tootsie's illness diagnosed. McMahon alleged defendants understood Tootsie's peculiar value to McMahon, and that McMahon would be emotionally devastated if Tootsie died.
Craig advised McMahon that aspiration pneumonia posed the biggest concern following surgery. McMahon understood that defendants would employ all necessary precautions to reduce this risk, including withholding all food and water from Tootsie for about 24 hours after surgery. Before Tootsie attempted to swallow for the first time, it was essential to allow the swelling in her throat to subside and the sedating drugs to wear off.
*2 After Craig operated on Tootsie, she instructed a technician to give the animal water mixed with baby food within two hours of her surgery to test her ability to swallow. When this was done, Tootsie immediately aspirated the mixture into her lungs. Craig advised McMahon by telephone the next day that Tootsie had acquired aspiration pneumonia. Craig falsely claimed Tootsie had been given only water the day before. Craig reassured McMahon this was not a major setback, and promised her Tootsie would receive the best care and be monitored closely. Craig did not inform McMahon Tootsie had been given water mixed with baby food and the pneumonia posed a serious, life threatening situation.
Contrary to Craig's promises, Tootsie was placed in a cage and left unmonitored in the back of the hospital. The defendants failed to provide appropriate antibiotics, oxygen, glucose, and other supportive care necessary to sustain life in a critical patient. Tootsie died about midnight the day after surgery and her death was discovered accidentally when a technician checked on another dog.
In the days immediately following Tootsie's death, Craig denied in writing that Tootsie ingested any food. Craig told McMahon Tootsie was under constant care and “ ‘never left alone.’ ” She suggested the likely cause of Tootsie's death was from aspiration of “ ‘oral secretions.’ ” Upon McMahon's request, defendants gave her some veterinary records regarding Tootsie, but initially withheld records demonstrating Tootsie had been given a mixture of food and water within two hours after surgery. After defendants learned McMahon obtained the omitted records from a third party, they altered their records to make them consistent with the third party documents.
A necropsy performed on Tootsie showed the animal likely died from aspiration pneumonia caused by food in her lungs. Three days after the operation, Craig directed the hospital to charge McMahon's credit card for all unpaid services rendered to Tootsie, without McMahon's knowledge or consent. They knew McMahon would not agree to pay for Tootsie's treatment.
“ ‘[The] negligent causing of emotional distress is not an independent tort but the tort of negligence ....’[Citation.] ‘The traditional elements of duty, breach of duty, causation, and damages apply. [¶] Whether a defendant owes a duty of care is a question of law. Its existence depends upon the foreseeability of the risk and upon a weighing of policy considerations for and against imposition of liability.’ ” ( Marlene F. v. Affiliated Psychiatric Medical Clinic, Inc. (1989) 48 Cal.3d 583, 588, 257 Cal.Rptr. 98, 770 P.2d 278 ( Marlene F.).) The law in California imposes a duty to avoid causing emotional distress in two general instances.
*4 Here, McMahon was not present at the scene when the injury-producing event occurred. Accordingly, McMahon does fall under the “bystander” category of persons to whom a duty to avoid causing emotion distress is owed.
The second source of duty is found where the plaintiff is a “direct victim,” in that the emotional distress damages result from a duty owed the plaintiff “that is ‘assumed by the defendant or imposed on the defendant as a matter of law, or that arises out of a relationship between the two.’ ” ( Burgess, supra, 2 Cal.4th at p. 1073, 9 Cal.Rptr.2d 615, 831 P.2d 1197.) McMahon argues that she had a special relationship with defendants akin to the physician-patient relationship that imposed a duty on defendants to avoid causing her emotional distress. We disagree.
In support of her claim, McMahon cites a series of cases in which a duty arose by virtue of a doctor-patient relationship. But although a veterinarian is hired by the owner of a pet, the veterinarian's medical care is directed only to the pet. Thus, a veterinarian's malpractice does not directly harm the owner in a manner creating liability for emotional distress. This point becomes clear upon review of the cases upon which McMahon principally relies.
*5 The present case is easily distinguishable from Burgess, for several reasons. First, unlike the obstetrician in Burgess, defendants' care of Tootsie would not directly impact McMahon's health. Second, unlike a mother and child, a pet owners' emotional well-being is not traditionally “inextricably intertwined” with the pet's physical well-being. Although a pet owner may be emotionally involved in the pet's health, nothing in Burgess suggests this relationship would give rise to “direct victim” liability for a veterinarian's malpractice. Indeed, the father of a newborn child, like the mother, undoubtedly anticipates the birth as “a wonderful and joyous occasion.” Yet, the Supreme Court in Burgess did not extend the “special relationship” duty owed by the obstetrician to the father. On this point, the court observed: “The physician-patient relationship critical to a mother's cause of action is almost always absent in a father's claim. It, therefore, appears that a father must meet the [bystander liability] criteria set forth in Thing [ v. LaChusa (1989) ] 48 Cal.3d 644 [257 Cal.Rptr. 865, 771 P.2d 814] if he is to have a viable claim.” ( Burgess, supra, 2 Cal.4th at p. 1078, fn. 8, 9 Cal.Rptr.2d 615, 831 P.2d 1197.) If the Supreme Court would not extend “direct victim” status to the father of child under a doctor's care, it assuredly would not extend it to an owner's pet under a veterinarian's care.
The situation here is a far cry from that in Molien. Defendants' malpractice could not have affected McMahon in the severe manner it affected the plaintiff whose wife was misdiagnosed with syphilis. Moreover, the Supreme Court later criticized Molien to the extent it suggested foreseeability as the only limit on duty, noting that if “ Molien ... stands for this proposition, it should not be relied upon and its discussion of duty is limited to its facts. As recognized in Thing, ‘[I]t is clear that foreseeability of the injury alone is not a useful “guideline” or a meaningful restriction on the scope of [an action for damages for negligently inflicted emotional distress.]’ ” ( Burgess, supra, 2 Cal.4th at p. 1074, 9 Cal.Rptr.2d 615, 831 P.2d 1197.) Accordingly, Molien is of no benefit to McMahon.
*6 Plaintiff also relies on Marlene F., supra, 48 Cal.3d 583, 257 Cal.Rptr. 98, 770 P.2d 278, in which a therapist treating mothers and their minor children molested the children. The court determined the mothers had adequately alleged negligence giving rise to emotional distress damages because the therapist had treated both the mothers and the children. The court noted the limited nature of its holding: “It bears repeating that the mothers here were the patients of the therapist along with their sons, and the therapist's tortious conduct was accordingly directed against both. They sought treatment for their children ... and agreed to be treated themselves to further the purposes of the therapy.” ( Id. at p. 591, 257 Cal.Rptr. 98, 770 P.2d 278.) The present situation is readily distinguishable because McMahon was never a patient of defendants.
These considerations persuade us to conclude that any extension of a duty of care to avoid emotional distress to pet owners is a matter best left to the Legislature. Accordingly, we conclude the trial court did not err in striking McMahon's allegations seeking emotional distress damages for negligence.
In her complaint, McMahon alleges defendants recklessly gave Tootsie food two hours after the surgery, failed to provide the necessary postoperative care they promised to furnish, and lied to McMahon about the severity of Tootsie's recovery complication and its cause. McMahon also alleges defendants knew of her close attachment to Tootsie before performing the surgery. She contends these allegations adequately allege extreme and outrageous conduct sufficient to support a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress. We disagree.
McMahon contends, however, that defendants' attempts to increase their malpractice coverage constitutes “[f]raudulent conduct, which supports an award of punitive damages, [and] is inherently despicable and grouped in the same classification as conduct which is ‘oppressive,’ which by definition is despicable.” Asserting an allegation of fraudulent conduct is sufficient to support an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim, McMahon relies on Katsaris v. Cook (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 256, 225 Cal.Rptr. 531 ( Katsaris ).
Even if we assume, however, the defendant's acts in Katsaris supported a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, defendants' efforts to coverup their malpractice does not approach the level of disregard for the plaintiff's emotional distress in Katsaris. There, the defendant's false statements misled the plaintiff into 10 days of fruitless searching for his dogs. Here, McMahon was informed immediately after her dog died. Defendants' attempts to hide their alleged malpractice were not likely to greatly increase the level of McMahon's distress over losing her dog, which she knew had died.
Because defendants' alleged acts were neither done in her presence nor directed at McMahon as necessary to support a claim for intentional infliction for emotional distress, we conclude the trial court did not err in sustaining demurrers to this cause of action. As McMahon did not demonstrate she could further amend her complaint to allege additional acts in support of this claim, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend.
*10 Civil Code section 3355 provides: “Where certain property has a peculiar value to a person recovering damages for deprivation thereof, or injury thereto, that may be deemed to be its value against one who had notice thereof before incurring a liability to damages in respect thereof, or against a willful wrongdoer.” In her complaint, McMahon sought $100,000 for loss of companionship, alleging companionship was an element of Tootsie's “peculiar value.” McMahon contends the trial court erred in striking this element of her damages. We disagree.
Peculiar value under Civil Code section 3355 refers to a property's unique economic value, not its sentimental or emotional value. In an early case considering an animal's “peculiar” value, Roos v. Loeser (1919) 41 Cal.App. 782, 183 P. 204, the plaintiff sought damages for the death of his dog caused by the defendant's negligence. On the amount of damages sought, the court observed the elements of the dog's peculiar value to include its pedigree, reputation, age, health, and ability to win dog shows. ( Id. at p. 785, 183 P. 204.) Thus, Roos clearly considered “peculiar value” to refer to special characteristics which increase the animal's monetary value, not its abstract value as a companion to its owner.
We recognize the love and loyalty a dog provides creates a strong emotional bond between an owner and his or her dog. But given California law does not allow parents to recover for the loss of companionship of their children, we are constrained not to allow a pet owner to recover for loss of the companionship of a pet. Accordingly, we conclude the trial court did not err in striking McMahon's loss of companionship allegations.
The judgment is affirmed. Defendants are entitled to their costs of this appeal.
WE CONCUR: O'LEARY, Acting P.J., and FYBEL, J.
FN1. Ordinarily a judgment entered pursuant to a stipulation is not appealable. ( Adoption of Matthew B. (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 1239, 1267, 284 Cal.Rptr. 18.) But an exception exists where the appellant's consent to judgment was given merely to facilitate an appeal following the trial court's adverse determination of a critical issue. ( Building Industry Assn. v. City of Camarillo (1986) 41 Cal.3d 810, 817, 226 Cal.Rptr. 81, 718 P.2d 68.) To be appealable the stipulated judgment must fully resolve all claims in the underlying litigation. ( Morehart v. County of Santa Barbara (1994) 7 Cal.4th 725, 743, 29 Cal.Rptr.2d 804, 872 P.2d 143.) The judgment in this case specifies that “plaintiff shall take nothing by her first amended complaint” against any of the defendants, and therefore fully adjudicates plaintiff's entire case.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.