Liability of a pet-related company and a pet stylist for cutting part of a cat's tail

The following shows a case where a cat's co-owners claimed damages for mental suffering, etc. against a pet-related company and a pet stylist who had negligently cut part of the cat's tail.

Although the court denied the property value of the cat, the court recognized liability of the pet-related company and the pet stylist and ordered them to pay the cat's treatment cost, co-owner's transportation cost for taking the cat to an animal hospital, damages for mental suffering, etc.

The judgment determined the scope of liability for pet medical malpractice, and it serves as a reference for similar cases.(Judgment by the Tokyo District Court on July 26, 2012, published on LEX/DB)

Summary of the case

Plaintiffs:

X1-4 (consumers and co-owners of a cat: 4 persons in total)

Defendants:

Y1 (pet-related company)

Y2 (pet stylist employed by Y1)

X2 bought a cat from a friend in December 2001. The cat (hereinafter called "A") had been carefully kept by X1-4. On April 20, 2011, X1 took A to Y1's shop (Y1 runs pet beauty salons and pet hotels) and ordered A's hair trimming, which was booked in advance. Y2 started to cut A's hair with an electric hair clipper from the back to the sides. When Y2 was using scissors to cut A's hairballs to get a better view, Y2 negligently cut about 5 cm of A's tail (A was aged 9 years and 7 months then).

A was taken to an animal hospital soon after the incident to receive medical treatment. The cut surface of the tail was bleeding and the tailbone was partly exposed. An animal doctor made a small incision in A's skin on the tail to expose the tailbone. Then, the doctor cut off a tail joint and sutured the skin. When A got medical attention again on June 10, 2011, the wound was healed and no aftereffect was observed.

X1-4 claimed damages for the following matters against Y1 under Article 715 of the Civil Code (liability of employers) and against Y2 under Article 709 of the Civil Code (torts) on the ground that Y1 and Y2 had infringed on X1-4's ownership of A.

1. Damage incurred by all of X1-4: [1] unpaid amount 520 yen among A's medical treatment cost (6,540 yen had been already compensated by the defendants); [2] cost associated with A's hospital visit (8,400 yen of bus transportation expenses in total for X1 to take A to the animal hospital, 10,500 yen for animal health checkup after losing weight and having health problems due to loss of appetite following the tail injury, and 3,150 yen for preparing progress reports during the period of hospital attendance); [3] 50,000 yen for A's proprietary damage (In addition to damage to the appearance, A became unable to run and move lightly and became too vigilant about people and sounds.)
2. Damage incurred only by X1: [1] X1 suffered great mental damage and was worn out physically and mentally while taking A to the hospital and caring A, which damaged X1's health. X1 had to receive medical treatment and incurred 6,540 yen in medical care and medication; [2] 126,000 yen of damages due to taking leave of absence from work because X1, a ballroom dancing teacher, had to stop teaching for a while during the period of treatment for A and for X1.
3. 100,000 yen of damages for mental suffering for each of X1-4

X1 claimed 250,682 yen for damages (100,000 yen + one quarter of the amount mentioned in 1 + the amount mentioned in 2) and each of the remaining plaintiffs claimed 118,142 yen for damages (100,000 yen + one quarter of the amount mentioned in 1). It appeared that X1 was X2's wife and that X3 and X4 were their children.

Reason

1.Reasons for liability

Y1 contracted with X1 to trim hair of A which was kept and co-owned by X1-4. Y1 owed a duty of care for the contract signatory X1 and other co-owners X2-4, so Y1 needed to be careful not to hurt A when trimming A's hair under the principle of good faith. However, Y2, an employee of Y1, negligently cut part of A's tail with scissors. Therefore it was recognized that Y2 had brought detriment to the property of X1-4. Accordingly, Y1, the employer of Y2, was liable for the damage under Article 715-1 of the Civil Code, and Y2 was liable for the damage caused by Y2's tort under Article 709 of the Civil Code.

2.Property damage of X1-4 concerning 1

1. [1] It was clear that the unpaid amount of 520 yen had a substantial causal relationship with the tort.
2. [2] (a) The transportation cost 8,400 yen was recognized as the hospital travel cost defrayed by X1-4.
   (b) It was recognized that the health checkup cost 10,500 yen had a substantial causal relationship with the tort on the grounds that A had received a health checkup during the period of hospital attendance and that there was no evidence to indicate that A had received the health checkup from any cause other than the incident.
   (c) The cost 3,150 yen for preparing progress reports was necessary and reasonable. Therefore it was recognized that the cost had a substantial causal relationship with the tort.
3. [3] A was an old cat aged 9 years and 7 months. It was difficult to calculate A's property value, and it was reasonable to take account of it in determining the compensation for mental suffering.

3.Damage incurred only by X1 concerning 2

The damage incurred only by X1 ([1] treatment cost incurred by health damage due to the incident; [2] damages due to taking leave of absence from work) was not recognized as damage caused by the tort. It was reasonable to take account of it in determining the compensation for mental suffering.

4.Compensation for mental suffering of X1-4

Pets are treated as "objects" in the legal sense. Different from inanimate movable property, however, pets are animate and act on a voluntary basis. Affection between owners and pets is generated and developed by various actions and interactions between them. In this sense, the friendly relationship between owners and pets is supposed to be close to the human relationship. On the other hand, A's physical damage was disconnection of part of the tail (about 5 cm), and the wound was healed. Although it was not easy to restore a good relationship between X1-4 and A which they had enjoyed, it could not be definitively said that it was not possible to restore such a good relationship. Moreover, A was aged 9 years and 7 months at the time of the incident, and it was generally thought that A would not be able to live for a long time considering the average life expectancy of cats. In light of these factors, it was reasonable for the court to award totally 100,000 yen of compensation for mental suffering to X1-4. X1's mental and physical suffering was larger than other co-owners, so it was reasonable to allocate 40,000 yen to X1 and 20,000 yen to each of X2-4 as compensation for mental suffering.

5.Conclusion

The court assessed the amount of damage incurred by X1 to be 45,642 yen and that incurred by each of X2-4 to be 25,642 yen. The claim for the remaining amount was recognized undue and was dismissed.

Explanation

There are six reference precedents 1 - 6 concerning pet medical malpractice. Of these, only one judgement by the Osaka High Court on August 30, 2017 construed that a pet hair trimming company had been liable (When an animal doctor was holding a rabbit while a pet stylist was cutting the rabbit's nails, the doctor broke the rabbit's backbone. The claim for damages was dismissed in the first instance, but the second decision reversed the original decision and the High Court ordered the defendant to pay 150,000 yen of damages to the owner).

1.Compensation for mental suffering

There's no precedent or theory to deny that damages for mental suffering should be awarded to a pet owner when a pet died due to someone's wrongful action based on the infringement of ownership. In case of a cat used for propagation purpose, however, a claim for damages was dismissed (reference precedent 1). The amount of damages for mental suffering has risen year by year. In the reference precedent 2, 150,000 yen was awarded to each of the couple. In the reference precedent 3, 200,000 yen was awarded to the plaintiff. In the reference precedent 4, 350,000 yen was awarded to each of the couple. The case in this article was related to a pet's injury, not death, which was unprecedented. When a pet is co-owned by several persons, the total amount of damages tends to be large. In the above case, however, the court regarded the cat as a pet co-owned by four persons, and determined 100,000 yen of compensation for mental suffering to be divided by the four co-owners, which is interesting.

2.Infringement of ownership

In case of infringement of ownership, impairment of property shall be compensated with the amount of property value. When it's possible to repair, impairment of property shall be compensated with the amount corresponding to the repair cost. When the repair cost is unreasonably large compared to the property value, impairment of property shall be compensated only with the property value instead of the repair cost. In this respect, handling of pets is completely different from that of inanimate property. Even in case of a pet without property value, the medical treatment cost should be compensated by the party at fault.

Usually, aged pets are judged worthless and a claim for damages thereof is dismissed. In the reference precedent 4, for instance, an old dog was objectively judged worthless, and a claim for 400,000 yen of expenses for buying a new dog was dismissed. In the reference precedent 5, the court acknowledged the property value of an American shorthair cat because of its excellent pedigree and awarded 500,000 yen of damages. In case of a dog with breeding capacity (reference precedent 6), a claim for lost earnings was dismissed because the owner did not intend to bread the dog.

3.Other types of property damage incurred by pet owners

In the judgment in this article, the court awarded damages including the transportation cost for taking the pet to the hospital, but did not award damages due to taking leave of absence from work, which deserves attention. Financial damage due to absence from work is indirect damage, which has been dismissed even in case of family death. In the reference precedent 7, 600 yen charges for praying and burial services were awarded. In the reference precedent 3, accommodation charges for attending a hospitalized pet were not recognized to have a substantial causal relationship with the tort, but the transportation cost for seeing a pet in the hospital was awarded.

Reference precedents

1. Judgment by the Osaka District Court on January 13, 1997
   (148 page of Hanrei Times No.942)
2. Judgment by the Kanazawa Branch of the Nagoya High Court on May 30, 2015
   (294 page of Hanrei Times No.1217)
3. Judgment by the Yokohama District Court on June 15, 2006
   (216 page of Hanrei Times No.1254)
4. Judgment by the Tokyo High Court on September 27, 2007
   (21 page of Hanrei Jiho No.1990)
5. Judgment by the Utsunomiya District Court on March 28, 2002
   (Website of the court)
6. Judgment by the Tokyo District Court on May 10, 2004
   (110 page of Hanrei Times No.1156)
   The above precedents are cases where the court recognized liability of the vet.
   The following precedent is a case not related to pet medical malpractice (case of death).
7. Judgment by the Tokyo District Court on February 1, 1961
   (published on LEX/DB)