Martinez

Martinez v. Robledo

Good Law
147 Cal. Rptr. 3d 921·210 Cal. App. 4th 384
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 23, 2012No. B231534; No. B231545California3,101 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Todd, J.

The consolidated appeals in these two cases present the same legal issue: What is the measure of damages for the wrongful injury of a pet? We hold that a pet owner is not limited to the market value of the pet and may recover the reasonable and necessary costs incurred for the treatment and care of the pet attributable to the injury. Accordingly, we reverse the stipulated judgments and remand the cases for further proceedings.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The plaintiffs in both cases are represented by the same attorneys, but the parties and facts are otherwise unrelated.

Elíseo Martinez, Jr., individually and as guardian ad litem for minors Elíseo Martinez III, Russell Eric Martinez, and Arlene Gonzalez (collectively Martinez) alleged the following: On the morning of February 5, 2009, Martinez’s family dog, Gunner, a two-year-old German shepherd, got loose from his yard and entered the property next door belonging to respondent Enrique Robledo. At the time, the neighbors were involved in a dispute over a hedge and were not on good terms. Gunner and Robledo’s dog began *387 barking at each other, but were separated by a gate and incapable of physical contact.…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.