By Jasmine Hall
Wyoming Tribune Eagle
Via- Wyoming News Exchange

CHEYENNE — Damages can’t be recovered for emotional injuries suffered due to the loss of a pet, according to a Wyoming Supreme Court opinion issued last Wednesday.

Justices came to this conclusion in April after hearing an appeal from Natrona County District Court between the Cardenas family and Sigiel Swanson. 

Four members of the Cardenas family sued Swanson to recover damages for emotional distress when their three St. Bernard dogs died after being entangled in snares set by Swanson in the foothills of Casper Mountain.

Court documents reveal the dogs were frequently allowed to run unleashed on the state land and neighboring private land near their mountain home and would always return to the house before dark. But one of the three dogs didn’t return at the end of the day on Nov. 29, 2014, when they were allowed to run outside, and the family began to search.

A few days later, Savannah and Braylon Cardenas continued the search while their parents were at work, and they walked along the ridgeline on the state land.The siblings took their two dogs, Barkley and Jax, to help, and Barkley ran ahead and down a draw. When he didn’t come back, they followed his path and found Barkley lying in a brush and caught in the snare.

They tried to free him from the snare but were unable to. In the meantime, the other dog, Jax, was caught in a different snare and died before the parents found all of them after work.

“When Ashley and Bob arrived, they found Braylon ‘rolled up in a ball, crying’ and Savannah ‘crying, apologizing over and over’ for being unable to save the dogs,” the court opinion includes. “The two children were utterly distraught. A few minutes later, a neighbor called to say he had located Brooklyn, who had also been caught in a snare and died.”

The snares were set by trapper and defendant Swanson, and the family sued, asserting claims of “negligence, willful and wanton misconduct, violation of statutes, infliction of emotional distress and civil rights violations.”

Swanson filed a motion to dismiss, and it was granted in part by Natrona County District Court. Judge Daniel Forgery dismissed the Cardenas’ claims for negligent infliction of emotional distress, intentional infliction of emotional distress and civil rights violations. 

But negligence claims for the son’s personal injury while trying to get the dog out of the snare, punitive damages, property damage and emotional distress damages in retaliation remained.

“After discovery, Mr. Swanson filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing the remaining claims failed as a matter of law, and seeking a determination that purely emotional damages are not recoverable,” the opinion stated. “The district court granted the motion in part and denied it in part. It found that Mr. Swanson’s conduct was not willful and wanton as a matter of law and that to the extent that the Cardenas’ remaining claims sought emotional damages arising from the loss of the dogs, damages could not be recovered.

“This left the claims for property damage based on the loss of the dogs, and Braylon’s personal injury unresolved. The parties reached an agreement on the property damage, leaving only Braylon’s personal injury claim.”

In the end, the Cardenas family appealed to the Wyoming Supreme Court and urged both recovery for emotional injuries be granted and a rule be adopted by the court “that emotional damages are recoverable (for the loss of property) when the acts or omissions of the defendants were illegal or unauthorized by the law.”

Justices didn’t grant the damages for two reasons that they said are backed up by case law. Some of the examples were in the denial of a plaintiff the ability to recover emotional distress damages for the death of their horse in malpractice against a vet, or when homeowners sued a plumbing contractor “seeking recovery for mental anguish suffered when flooding damaged their home and destroyed personal possessions.”

The high court maintained that emotional injuries for the loss of property are not recoverable, and the minor injuries by Savannah and Braylon do not give rise to the claim for emotional distress damages.

When it came to declining the rule recommended by the Cardenas family, they rejected the argument that “some animals, because of this emotional attachment to some owners, should fall into a property-plus category. As such, in appropriate circumstances, damages for mental distress resulting from either the intentional or negligent destruction of a pet should be recoverable.”

“The Cardenas family proposes that the Court draw a distinction between animate and inanimate personal property and allow recovery for emotional distress damages when animate property is negligently harmed,” according to the opinion discussion. “This is an argument best made to the Legislature, and we decline to expand the reach of emotional damages to property inanimate or animate.”