Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Civil Liability And Animals topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears bid to allow loss‑of‑consortium damages for pets; opponents warn of broad legal consequences
Summary
Representative Ellen Reed proposed HB 593 to define "loss of consortium" and to allow limited non‑economic damages when a companion animal is negligently or intentionally killed; supporters cited grief and public‑safety incentives, while kennel and dog‑owner organizations warned the change could reclassify animals and spur costly litigation.
Representative Ellen Reed told the Judiciary Committee HB 593 would define "loss of consortium" and extend a cause of action to the loss of a spouse and to a person’s companion animal. Reed said current law limits remedies for a lost pet to replacement (market) value, which she argued fails to recognize the emotional and practical value animals provide to many families.
Reed presented a definition of loss of consortium that includes "loss of love, companionship, comfort, care, assistance, protection, affection, society and moral support" and an explicit clause covering animals. She said five other states (Illinois, Maryland, Connecticut, Nevada and Tennessee) have expanded civil remedies to recognize non‑economic harms tied to companion animals, and she argued modest, capped damages would provide accountability and incentivize better standards of care among veterinary providers.
Opponents included the American Kennel Club and Dog Owners of the Granite State. AKC legislative counsel Stacy Ober told the committee that American animal‑welfare law and property law currently allow enforcement of care and cruelty laws and reclaim stolen animals; she argued equating pets to spouses or children is a legal and conceptual leap with unintended consequences—higher insurance costs, defensive veterinary practices, and erosion of owner decision‑making. Dog Owners of the Granite State raised similar concerns about ownership rights and potential litigation.
Several private witnesses described personal trauma after losing a pet to alleged veterinary malpractice and favored a middle ground that recognized emotional harm while limiting awards and preserving owners’ property rights. Representative Reed acknowledged opposition and suggested drafting options and caps could address municipal/insurance concerns.
At executive session later in the day the committee voted ITL (Inexpedient to Legislate) on HB 593. The roll call returned 11 yeas, 0 nays on the committee motion recommending the bill be held as inexpedient to legislate.
