## Facts

- Julie L. Rabideau owned a dog, Dakota.
- After Rabideau parked her truck near her home, Dakota jumped out and crossed the street toward another dog in the yard of Officer Thomas Jacobi, a City of Racine police officer.
- Jacobi shot Dakota with his service weapon; Dakota later died.
- Rabideau witnessed the events leading to the shooting and later learned Dakota had died.
- Rabideau alleged she suffered significant emotional distress from the incident.
- Rabideau sued the City of Racine for negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED); the circuit court granted summary judgment for the City, and the court of appeals affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether Wisconsin law permits a dog owner to recover bystander NIED damages after witnessing the negligent shooting and death of her companion dog.
2. Whether public policy limits on negligence liability bar such recovery, even if general NIED requirements could otherwise be satisfied.

## Decision

- The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for the City of Racine.
- The court held Rabideau could not recover damages for NIED arising from the negligent killing of her dog.
- The court relied on public policy limitations to deny recognition of the claim, while acknowledging the emotional significance of companion animals.

## Legal Principles

- Under Wisconsin law, a dog is classified as personal property for purposes of tort remedies, even though the human–dog relationship may have substantial emotional value.
- Wisconsin’s bystander NIED doctrine has been applied in cases involving serious injury or death to human beings; the court declined to extend it to emotional distress from negligent injury to property, including a companion animal.
- Wisconsin courts may bar negligence liability on public policy grounds notwithstanding proof of duty, breach, causation, and damages, including concerns about indeterminate and difficult-to-limit liability if emotional distress damages were allowed for negligent harm to pets.
- The court indicated that, on appropriate facts, emotional distress damages may be available for intentional infliction of emotional distress connected to harm to a pet, distinguishing intentional misconduct from negligence.

## Conclusion

The court declined to extend bystander NIED recovery to emotional distress caused by the negligent killing of a companion dog and held that public policy bars such damages against the municipality, leaving emotional-distress recovery more plausibly available only in intentional-misconduct settings.


Rabideau v. City of Racine, 627 N.W.2d 795 (Wis. 2001)