In the case of Witters v. Smith, No. 1:23-CV-1441 (M.D. Pa. June 10, 2024 Connor, J.), the court granted in part and denied in part a Motion to Dismiss in a case involving claims of intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress relative to the shooting of the Plaintiff's dog.
In this matter, the only injury claimed was to the Plaintiff’s dog. In this case, members of the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole allegedly entered the Plaintiff's backyard without their permission and shot their pet dog. The Plaintiff's pursued various claims.
The court ruled the Pennsylvania law requires that both intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress claims require that the Defendant caused some physical harm to the Plaintiffs. Here, no physical harm to the Plaintiffs was alleged.
The court additionally ruled that the law of loss of consortium claims does not extend to the loss or injury to pets of a plaintiff.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.
I send thanks to Attorney James M. Beck of the Philadelphia office of the Reed Smith law firm for bringing this case to my attention.
The court additionally ruled that the law of loss of consortium claims does not extend to the loss or injury to pets of a plaintiff.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.
I send thanks to Attorney James M. Beck of the Philadelphia office of the Reed Smith law firm for bringing this case to my attention.
Source of image: Photo by Charles Deluvio on www.pexels.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.