To most dog owners, their canine companions are more than merely pets. Showered with love, affection, and perhaps a large number of toys and treats, many view their furbabies and furbuddies as full family members. As a woman discovered after a fatal mishap, South Carolina law does not necessarily agree.
On February 11, 2026, the South Carolina Court of Appeals upheld a circuit court’s partial summary judgment from 2022 in a per curiam decision. In a lawsuit involving an unfortunate demise at a doggy daycare, plaintiff Sarah Rock had argued that, given her deep attachment to her dogs Xumi and Ruben, the emotional trauma and pain and suffering she endured after Xumi’s wrongful death at Dog Daze of Charleston, LLC, should allow her to seek fair compensation through a personal injury claim for emotional distress. With two courts ruling that the stance of her relationship with her dogs having “special value” lacks bite, Rock may have to reassess her legal options.
The affirmation applies to the partial summary judgment’s narrow focus on pet dogs being considered personal property and assessed at market value for damages, as set forth in the South Carolina Supreme Court’s ruling in 1899’s State v. Langford. While Rock can continue to seek relief from counts of negligence, bailment, and breach of contract against Dog Daze and its owner, Charlie Freeman, her hopes of receiving emotional damages akin to those in a personal injury attorney seem pretty far-fetched at this point.
It’s a Matter of Law
Once aware of the circumstances, few won’t feel empathy for Rock’s plight. As a single person, Rock considered Xumi, a five-year-old Miniature Poodle/Schnauzer mix weighing 12 pounds, and Ruben, a two-year-old, 16-pound Shih Tzu/Miniature Pinscher, as her children. Travel for work forced her to board her furbabies with Freeman at Dog Daze, a canine boarding, grooming, and daycare center, in July of 2022.
On July 14th, a week after she’d dropped them off, Rock received a call that no pet owner wants to get. A German Shepherd at Dog Daze had managed to escape from its chain-link run and get into one that contained Xumi and Ruben. It attacked both dogs, and Xumi died from physical injuries suffered from dog bites. Ruben also suffered serious injuries but survived after receiving medical attention. Distraught, Rock immediately flew home.
Humans who are dog bite victims can seek non-economic damages as well as restitution for lost wages and medical expenses not covered by an insurance company. Claims for emotional distress are usually filed with help and legal advice from a personal injury lawyer, particularly in states with strict liability laws.
Despite the deep ties forged between owners and their pets, most jurisdictions treat dogs, cats, and other animals as personal property when determining compensation. While it can vary by state, most legislation assesses animals at “market rate” when replacement becomes necessary, much as they would a vehicle or a piece of art. This can even involve a judge ruling that a divorcing couple must bid against each other in a private auction to determine who gets the beloved family dog. This may seem unreasonable to many pet owners who consider their companions to be priceless.
It’s Difficult To Replace a Dog-Shaped Hole in One’s Heart
Rock filed a lawsuit against Freeman and Dog Daze in December 2022, listing Xumi and Ruben as her “family members” in the factual background. She claimed the damage to her well-being caused by the loss of Xumi and the injuries suffered by Ruben went far beyond having their medical bills covered by the defendant. Suffering from ongoing extreme grief, anxiety, posttraumatic stress, and emotional distress and pain, Rock brought in a professor of sociology and a specialist in the bonds between humans and their pets to testify as an expert witness.
Due to Freeman and Dog Daze’s breach of contract and gross negligence, Rock argued that the emotional pain she was suffering was no different than that found in personal injury cases and so should be eligible for the same type of relief. This included seeking punitive damages against the defendants for their alleged reckless, careless, and grossly negligent actions. In doing so, Rock didn’t dispute the lower court’s interpretation of South Carolina law with regard to the actual value of pets, but rather looked to see if the legal definition could be changed.
While sympathetic to Rock’s loss and emotional pain, the appeals court upheld the partial summary judgment under Rule 56 of the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure. The panel noted that a small minority of states allow emotional distress damages if the pet in question was harmed with intentional or malicious conduct, but it found no evidence that the defendants acted in that manner.
It’s a case where nobody really wins, but someone still has to triumph in a legal sense. The motion filed by the defense only targeted the legality of the emotional distress claims, which means Rock’s lawsuit can continue. However, she’d be bound by the laws of South Carolina, which state that Xumi’s value is only equal to the market worth of a replacement. Rock would likely argue that no such replacement exists at any price.
Related Resources
- A Satanist’s Fight Over Chief Wiggum, the Emotional Support Pig (Findlaw’s Legally Weird)
- Pet Custody in Divorce and Separation: Who Gets Fido? (FindLaw’s Law and Daily Life)
- Appealing a Court Decision or Judgment (FindLaw’s Filing a Lawsuit)
