## Facts

- Sarah Burgess took her 13-year-old Yorkshire terrier, Murphy, to Shampooch Pet Industries, Inc., a pet-grooming business, for grooming on April 10, 2004.
- Two days earlier, a veterinarian examined Murphy and found the dog in good health; Murphy also appeared healthy when Burgess left the dog at Shampooch.
- After Burgess picked Murphy up and paid the $30 grooming charge, she immediately noticed Murphy was limping and behaving abnormally.
- Burgess returned to Shampooch at once; a representative denied responsibility for Murphy’s injury.
- Burgess obtained emergency veterinary care the next day; Murphy underwent surgery on April 13, 2004, to treat a dislocated hip.
- Burgess incurred $1,308.89 in veterinary expenses, including diagnostic testing and postoperative treatment, and testified Murphy returned to normal shortly after treatment.
- Burgess sued in Kansas district court (Chapter 61) alleging Shampooch’s negligence caused the injury; after a bench trial, the court awarded Burgess $1,308.89 plus costs, based on the veterinary bills.
- Shampooch appealed, arguing damages should be limited to Murphy’s market value, which it claimed was negligible.

## Issues

1. Under Kansas law, when an injured pet dog has no discernable market value and is restored to prior health, may damages include the reasonable and customary cost of necessary veterinary care rather than being limited to market value?

## Decision

- The Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment for Burgess.
- The court held that when an injured pet dog has no discernable market value and is restored to its previous health, the measure of damages may include, but is not limited to, the reasonable and customary cost of necessary veterinary care and treatment.
- The court upheld the $1,308.89 award because the veterinary expenses were undisputed and reflected necessary treatment that restored Murphy’s health.

## Legal Principles

- Animals are treated as personal property for damages purposes under Kansas law, but traditional market-value measures may be inadequate where an item of property has no discernable market value.
- When market value is not meaningful or is difficult to ascertain, Kansas damages doctrine permits alternative measures that reasonably compensate the owner, including repair-type costs.
- For an injured pet dog with no discernable market value that is restored to prior condition, reasonable and customary veterinary expenses necessary to treat the injury are a permissible component of compensatory damages.
- Limits on recovery include (1) lack of discernable market value, (2) restoration to previous health, and (3) reasonableness and necessity of the veterinary care; trial courts may reject excessive or unsupported expenses.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed a veterinary-expense award for negligent injury to a companion dog, holding that where a pet lacks discernable market value and is restored to prior health, the owner may recover the reasonable and customary costs of necessary veterinary treatment rather than being confined to nominal market-value damages.


Burgess v. Shampooch Pet Indus., Inc., 35 Kan. App. 2d 458 (Kan. Ct. App. 2006)