## Facts

- Sarah and Denis Scheele owned a dog, Shadow.
- In July 2003, while visiting Vermont, the Scheeles stopped in a church parking lot in Northfield; Shadow, unleashed, wandered onto adjacent property owned by Lewis Dustin.
- Dustin, on his porch with a pellet gun, aimed at Shadow and shot, killing the dog.
- The parties stipulated Shadow displayed no aggressive behavior, posed no threat, and Dustin was not in physical danger when he fired.
- Shadow died from a pellet shot that caused internal hemorrhaging.
- The parties stipulated the shooting was intentional and malicious.
- The Scheeles observed the shot’s impact and Shadow’s pain and death.
- The parties stipulated the Scheeles suffered severe emotional distress (including nightmares, sleeplessness, sadness, and physical stress) as a direct and proximate result of the shooting.
- The Scheeles sued for intentional tort damages, asserted a separate “loss of companionship” claim, and sought economic damages, noneconomic damages, and punitive damages.
- After a bench trial on stipulated facts and damages, the trial court awarded $155 in economic damages (including adoption fees, veterinary bills, and cremation costs) and denied noneconomic damages.

## Issues

1. Whether Vermont law permits noneconomic damages (including emotional distress and loss of companionship) for the intentional, malicious killing of a dog treated as personal property.
2. Whether Vermont recognizes an independent cause of action for “loss of companionship” regarding pets.

## Decision

- The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed.
- The court held that a dog is personal property under Vermont law and that damages for its destruction are limited to economic loss (such as market/replacement value and related expenses).
- The court held that Vermont law does not allow noneconomic damages for malicious destruction of personal property, even when the property is a pet and the owners suffer severe emotional distress.
- The court rejected recognition of an independent “loss of companionship” claim for pets.
- The $155 economic-damages award was upheld; noneconomic damages were denied.

## Legal Principles

- Under Vermont law, dogs are classified as personal property for purposes of measuring damages.
- In actions for destruction of property, recovery is generally limited to economic damages; emotional harm derivative of property loss is not compensable absent a separately recognized tort allowing such recovery.
- Vermont does not recognize noneconomic damages (including emotional distress and loss of companionship) for the intentional or malicious destruction of personal property, including pets.
- Vermont does not recognize a standalone cause of action for loss of companionship with respect to animals; companionship/consortium remedies remain limited to established human relationship contexts.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed that the intentional, malicious killing of a dog supports only economic damages measured by property-loss principles and declined to expand Vermont tort law to permit emotional-distress or loss-of-companionship damages for pets.


Scheele v. Dustin, 188 Vt. 36, 998 A.2d 697 (Vt. 2010)