## Facts

- Joseph and Anita Jankoski brought their German shepherd to Preiser Animal Hospital for diagnostic treatment on January 31, 1985.
- During examination, defendants administered anesthesia; the dog died during the procedure.
- Plaintiffs alleged defendants negligently failed to properly administer anesthesia and to properly monitor the dog’s condition.
- Plaintiffs sought damages for loss of the dog’s “companionship, loyalty, security and friendship,” rather than for the dog’s market or property value.
- The trial court offered leave to amend to plead a property-damage theory; plaintiffs declined and asserted the dog had “no value as property.”
- The trial court dismissed the complaint with prejudice for failure to state a cause of action, and plaintiffs appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether Illinois recognizes an independent cause of action permitting damages for loss of companionship arising from the negligently caused death of a dog, apart from recovery based on the dog’s value as property.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed the dismissal with prejudice.
- Illinois does not recognize an independent cause of action for loss of a pet’s companionship due to negligent death.
- The court declined to expand Illinois common law to allow sentimental or relational-companionship damages for the loss of a dog.
- Because plaintiffs refused to plead recoverable property damages, the complaint failed to state a legally cognizable claim.

## Legal Principles

- In Illinois, dogs are treated as personal property for purposes of tort damages, and recovery for their loss is generally limited to economic measures tied to property value.
- Damages for sentimental loss or companionship associated with property are not recoverable absent a recognized legal basis; pets are not an exception.
- Loss-of-companionship damages in Illinois wrongful-death actions arise from statutory authority and statutory interpretation, not from a general common-law rule transferable to nonhuman relationships.
- Intermediate appellate courts will not create a new category of noneconomic damages for pet loss absent direction from the legislature or the state supreme court.

## Conclusion

The court held that Illinois law does not permit a standalone negligence recovery for the loss of a dog’s companionship; plaintiffs were limited to property-based damages and, having refused to plead them, their complaint was properly dismissed.


Jankoski v. Preiser Animal Hosp., Ltd., 157 Ill. App. 3d 818, 510 N.E.2d 1084 (Ill. App. Ct. 1987)