Your pet may be family, but South Carolina law has not caught up yet. In a recent decision, the South Carolina Court of Appeals reaffirmed a longstanding rule in the state: pet owners cannot recover emotional distress damages when a beloved pet is negligently injured or killed. While the court expressed sympathy for the owner’s loss, it held firmly that, under existing South Carolina law, dogs are legally classified as personal property, and the remedies available mirror that classification.
This new opinion provides the most comprehensive modern analysis of the issue in South Carolina and signals that any expansion of remedies for pet injury must come from the legislature, not the courts.
A 125-Year-Old Rule Still Controls: Dogs Are Personal Property
The court’s reasoning began with South Carolina’s longstanding pet-damage jurisprudence, which explicitly recognizes dogs as personal property for purposes of larceny. That classification has remained unchanged for more than a century. Accordingly, South Carolina’s traditional measure of property damage applies: the difference in market value immediately before and after the injury. While the characterization of pets as personal property was unchallenged by the plaintiff, the question related to damages turned on whether this measure fails to account for the undeniable emotional loss that comes with the injury or death of a companion animal.
The court agreed that such losses are real, but emphasized that the law does not currently recognize emotional distress damages in this context.
Prior Decisions, Though Unpublished, Point the Same Direction and Follow the National Majority Rule
The court pointed to two earlier unpublished decisions that reached identical conclusions. Both recognized that because pets are classified as property, emotional damages—common in personal injury cases—are not available. Federal courts applying South Carolina law have reached the same result, limiting recovery to market value or other pecuniary loss.
The court also surveyed national authority and concluded that most jurisdictions do not allow emotional distress damages for the negligent harm or death of a pet. A minority of states permit emotional distress damages in cases involving intentional or malicious conduct—but the Court noted the plaintiff in the subject case did not allege intentional harm, so even that minority rule did not apply.
Arguments Based on Evolving Public Policy Fall to Separation-of-Powers Principles
The plaintiff, supported by the Animal Legal Defense Fund, argued that modern society increasingly treats dogs as family members and that South Carolina statutes show a trend toward enhanced legal protection for pets. Examples included dog-specific statutory protections; domestic abuse protections that allow courts to address pets in restraining orders; and statutes allowing trusts for pet care.
But the court held that these legislative enactments do not authorize courts to create new categories of damages. Any shift toward compensating emotional loss must come from the General Assembly. The court emphasized South Carolina’s strong separation of powers doctrine: Public policy decisions belong to the legislature—not the judiciary.
A Door Left Slightly Open: “Special Value” to the Owner
While affirming that emotional distress damages are unavailable, the Court noted that the plaintiff’s claim for special-value damages—sometimes referred to as “actual value to the owner”—were not disposed of at the summary judgment stage.
Under existing precedent, property with little or no market value may allow recovery of its actual or special value to the owner.
Because certain paragraphs of the plaintiff’s complaint were not included in the circuit court’s summary judgment ruling, the issue remains open: Can special value include sentimental components such as loss of companionship or emotional support? The Court of Appeals declined to answer that question, leaving it for the circuit court to address on remand.
