## Facts

- Thomas M. Smith and Cary S. Smith owned an 11-year-old springer spaniel.
- The Smiths’ neighbors owned a larger dog that attacked and severely injured the Smiths’ dog.
- The neighbors’ dog had a prior history that triggered Wisconsin’s dog-owner liability statute’s notice-based double-damages provision.
- The Smiths incurred more than $12,000 in veterinary bills attempting to save their dog.
- The Smiths sued under Wis. Stat. § 174.02, seeking recovery of their damages and, because of prior notice, doubling of those damages.
- The neighbors’ liability insurer, Wisconsin Mutual Insurance Company, filed a declaratory-judgment action to determine the proper measure of damages for injury to the dog.
- Wisconsin Mutual argued the Smiths’ recovery was limited to the traditional property-damage measure: the lesser of (1) the reasonable cost of repair (veterinary treatment) or (2) the dog’s pre-injury fair market value.
- The Smiths argued their dog should be treated like certain items with special value to the owner (such as heirlooms, keepsakes, and family photographs), permitting recovery beyond market value based on the dog’s importance to the family and the actual veterinary expenses.
- The circuit court agreed with Wisconsin Mutual, found the dog’s fair market value to be $2,695, and held compensatory damages were capped at that amount; it then applied the statute’s doubling provision and awarded $5,390.
- The Smiths appealed.

## Issues

1. Under Wisconsin law, may an owner recover veterinary expenses exceeding a dog’s pre-injury fair market value for injuries caused by another dog, based on the dog’s special value as a companion animal?
2. Does Wis. Stat. § 174.02’s “double damages” provision permit doubling the owners’ full veterinary expenses, or does it double only the amount recoverable under ordinary property-damage rules?

## Decision

- The Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed.
- The court held that, for damages purposes, a dog is classified as personal property under Wisconsin law.
- Applying ordinary property-damage rules, the court concluded the proper measure of compensatory damages is the lesser of the reasonable cost of repair (here, veterinary treatment) or the property’s diminution in value (commonly measured by pre-injury fair market value when the loss is total).
- Because the veterinary bills exceeded the dog’s fair market value, the court held the Smiths’ compensatory damages were limited to the fair market value found by the circuit court ($2,695).
- The court rejected the Smiths’ request to treat a companion dog like items for which courts sometimes permit damages above market value based on special value to the owner.
- The court held that Wis. Stat. § 174.02(1)(b) doubles the amount of legally recoverable damages determined under existing damages law; it does not create a new, broader category of recoverable losses that would allow uncapped veterinary expenses.
- Accordingly, the doubled recovery was properly calculated by doubling the capped compensatory damages ($2,695 × 2 = $5,390), not by doubling the veterinary expenses.

## Legal Principles

- A dog is treated as personal property for purposes of tort damages under Wisconsin law.
- For injury to personal property, the standard measure of damages is generally the lesser of (1) the reasonable cost to repair/restore the property or (2) the diminution in value, often expressed as the property’s pre-injury fair market value in a total-loss setting.
- Wisconsin law does not permit damages based on sentimental value, emotional loss, or companionship loss arising from harm to personal property, including pets.
- Wis. Stat. § 174.02 imposes strict liability on dog owners for damages caused by their dogs, and its notice-based doubling provision multiplies the damages recoverable under ordinary damages rules; it does not expand what counts as compensable damages.
- Any change to allow recovery of veterinary expenses above fair market value for companion animals is a matter for the legislature, not the intermediate appellate court applying existing precedent.

## Conclusion

Smith v. Wisconsin Mutual Insurance Company holds that, even when owners incur substantial veterinary expenses to save an injured dog, Wisconsin treats the dog as personal property and limits compensatory damages to the lesser of reasonable veterinary “repair” costs or the dog’s pre-injury fair market value; the double-damages provision in Wis. Stat. § 174.02(1)(b) doubles only that capped amount rather than the owners’ full veterinary bills.


Smith v. Wisconsin Mutual Insurance Company, 369 Wis. 2d 244, 880 N.W.2d 183 (2016)