KNOWLES ANIMAL HOSPITAL, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
HELEN WILLS AND HOWARD WILLS, HER HUSBAND, APPELLEES; HELEN WILLS AND HOWARD WILLS, HER HUSBAND, APPELLANTS, V. DR. ROBERT KNOWLES, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Willses sued Knowles Animal Hospital and Dr. Knowles for negligence resulting in a severe burn to their dog during post-operative care. The jury found in favor of Dr. Knowles but awarded $13,000 against the Hospital. Both parties appealed, and the court affirmed both judgments, holding that owners may recover for their own mental pain and suffering caused by injury to their pet.
The court held that plaintiffs may recover for their own mental pain and suffering caused by injury to their pet, and that the evidence supported the jury's award against the hospital based on the neglectful conduct amounting to great indifference to the plaintiffs' property.
[1] A jury may award damages for the mental pain and suffering of a pet owner resulting from injury to their pet.
[2] Gross negligence in the care of a pet, demonstrating great indifference to the owner's property, can justify punitive damages.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“we hold that the court did not commit err by including for consideration of the jury the element of the mental pain and suffering of the plaintiff-owners of the dog”
Establishes that owners can recover for their own mental suffering caused by injury to their pet
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFollowing a surgical operation, the Willses' dog was placed on a heating pad in a cage at the hospital and left unattended for a day and most of a sec…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Gross Negligence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Helen Wills and Howard Wills filed an action against Knowles Animal Hospital, Inc., and Dr. Robert Knowles for injury to plaintiffs’ dog, and for consequent physical and mental pain and suffering caused thereby to plaintiffs. It was alleged that the defendants were guilty of gross negligence resulting in a severe burn and disfigurement being inflicted on the dog. Plaintiffs sought compensatory and punitive damages. Jury trial resulted in favor of the defendant, Dr. Knowles, and a verdict and judgment in favor of plaintiffs against defendant Hospital corporation for $13,000.00 made up of awards of $1,000.00 and $12,000.00.
The defendant Hospital appealed (No. 77-1758) and plaintiffs appealed from the judgment in favor of Dr. Knowles (No. 77-1754). We affirm the judgments appealed from.
Following an operation on the dog, it was placed on a heating pad in a cage and permitted to remain thereon in the hospital for a day and the better part of a second day with an absence of care or attention. Severe burn on one side of the dog was the result. The plaintiffs’ claim of physical and mental suffering which followed was sustained in the evidence. Thereafter, elsewhere, the dog underwent treatment, and partly because of the effect of that injury to the dog and because of another unrelated adverse condition which developed, the dog subsequently was required to be put away. On authority of Kirksey v. Jernigan, 45 So. 2d 188 (Fla.1950), and LaPorte v. Associated Independents, Inc., 163 So. 2d 267 (Fla.1964), we hold that the court did not commit err by including for consideration of the jury the element of the mental pain and suffering of the plaintiff-owners of the dog.
Additionally, on the evidence the jury could, and no doubt did view the neglectful conduct which resulted in the burn injury suffered by the dog to have been of a character amounting to great indifference to the property of the plaintiffs, such as to justify the jury award. See: Levine v. Knowles, 197 So. 2d 329 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967); Levine v. Knowles, 218 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969); Levine v. Knowles, 228 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gellert v. E. AIR Lines, Inc., 370 So. 2d 802 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…lin, 177 So. 2d 551 (Fla.3d DCA 1965); Sacco v. Eagle Finance Corporation of North Miami Beach, 234 So. 2d 406 (Fla.3d DCA 1970); Henry Morrison Flagler Museum v. Lee, supra, 268 So. 2d 434 (Fla.4th DCA 1972); Knowles Animal Hospital, Inc. v. Wills, 360 So. 2d 37 (Fla.3d DCA 1978). [*806] In Kirksey v. Jernigan, supra, the Supreme Court reversed the dismissal of a complaint for damages for mental pain and anguish suffered by the plaintiff as a result of conduct of the defendant which the Court regarded as a…
-
King v. E. Airlines, Inc., 536 So. 2d 1023 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…istress where credit company falsely told debtor’s mother that grandchildren were in serious auto accident), cert, dismissed, 379 So. 2d 204 (Fla.1979) [based on authority of Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 46]; Knowles Animal Hosp., Inc. v. Wills, 360 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978) (recovery for dog owner’s mental suffering allowed where veterinarian left dog on heating pad and dog was severely burned), cert. denied, 368 So. 2d 1369 (Fla.1979); Korbin v. Berlin, 177 So. 2d 551 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965) (six-year ol…1 / 2
-
Clark McPHAIL v. G. Frank Jenkins, D.D.S., 382 So. 2d 1329 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)…ect appellants’ contention that the actions complained of were so outrageous as to imply malice, so as to authorize recovery under the principles announced in Kirksey v. Jernigan, 45 So. 2d 188 (Fla.1950), and Knowles Animal Hospital, Inc. v. Wills, 360 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1978). We are of the opinion that the allegations of the second amended complaint, even if taken as true, are consistent only with the theory of negligence, and they do not reasonably imply malice or the entire want of care or attentio…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Kirksey v. Jernigan, 45 So. 2d 188 (Fla. 1950)
- la Porte v. Associated Independents, Inc., 163 So. 2d 267 (Fla. 1964)
- Levine v. Knowles, 197 So. 2d 329 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)
- Levine v. Knowles, 218 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)
- Levine v. Knowles, 228 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)