Attempt to Recover Attorney Fees for Loss of Dogs Rebuffed by Appeals Court
In Palfreyman v. Gaconnet, Houston's Fourteenth Court of Appeals focused on § 38.001 (6) of the Texas Civil Practices & Remedies Code, an obscure law that allows people to recover attorney fees if their claim concerns “killed or injured stock.”
September 28, 2018 at 05:10 PM
4 minute read
Five years after the Texas Supreme Court ruled that dog owners cannot recover emotion-based damages over the loss of their pets, another state appellate court has determined that such plaintiffs also can't recover attorney fees.
In Palfreyman v. Gaconnet, Houston's Fourteenth Court of Appeals focused on § 38.001 (6) of the Texas Civil Practices & Remedies Code, an obscure law that allows people to recover attorney fees if their claim concerns “killed or injured stock.”
According to the decision, Rita Palfreyman sued Becky Gaconnet, the owner of a dog-boarding business, for negligence after her two Yorkies, Ricco and Warwick, died while at Gaconnet's facility. Palfreyman also moved to recover attorney fees under § 38.001 (6).
Palfreyman seemingly had little chance of a significant recovery in the case because of the Supreme Court's 2013 decision in Strickland v. Medlen, which determined that plaintiffs could recover only for the property value of a dog. “Pets are property in the eyes of the law, and we decline to permit non-economic damages rooted solely in an owner's subjective feelings,” the court wrote in that decision.
In Palfreyman's case, the trial court eventually awarded her $900 dollars for the loss of the dogs but denied any recovery of the $7,000 in attorney fees she claimed to have spent prosecuting her suit.
Palfreyman appealed the decision to the Fourteenth Court, arguing that attorney fees are recoverable for the loss of her dogs because the animals constituted “stock” under § 38.001 (6).
In its decision, the Fourteenth Court noted that the use of the term “stock” in Texas law is scant. The term “livestock” has been used to define animals such as cattle, sheep, swine, goats and poultry raised for human consumption, and to define horses and donkeys raised under agriculture practices, according to the decision.
But the court ultimately declined to expand the definition of “stock” to include dogs.
“We conclude the term 'stock' in section 38.001 (6) does not include pet dogs,” wrote Justice Martha Hill Jamison. “Accordingly, Palfreyman was not entitled to attorney's fees pursuant to section 38.001 (6).”
Savannah Robinson, a Danbury attorney who represents Palfreyman, was disappointed the court declined her client's attempt to recover attorney fees.
“It's a novel idea. If you're not going to give people fair value for their pets, you ought to at least give them attorney fees for pursing some kind of recovery,” Robinson said. “In our case, the people who killed her dogs didn't tell her how they died and they had to file suit to find out. It's just grossly unfair that people can kill your pet and not tell you want happened.”
Robinson said the Yorkies belonged to both Palfreyman and her late husband.
“These dogs were their entire families. If you ever see an older person with a dog, they sit with them and stay with them, and they sometimes keep them from going into dementia,” Robinson said. “They have value, and that needs to be recognized.”
Mark B. Jones, an Angleton attorney who represents Gaconnet, said Palfreyman's Yorkies were likely killed at his client's facility after they escaped from their cage and came in contact with Gaconnet's American Staffordshire Terriers. Jones also said there was no way for his client to determine exactly what happened because she was not at the facility at the time the Yorkies died.
Jones believes the Fourteenth Court's decision, combined with the Supreme Court's decision in Medlen, will impact other cases in which plaintiffs attempt to recover for the loss of companionship or therapy dogs.
“This cuts out an avenue of plaintiff's attorneys getting their attorney fees by saying 'at least we can call them stock.'” Jones said. “It will keep them from circumventing the statute and filing frivolous lawsuits until the Legislature changes the law.”
Jones said he's sympathetic to people who lose their dogs.
“I have two dogs who come to the office with me every day, so I understand how people feel about their dogs,'' he said.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllFoley Partner Wrapping Up Long Legal Career, 29 Years of Chairing MLK Jr. Oratory Competition in Houston
3 minute readTexas-Based Ferguson Braswell Expands in California With 6-Lawyer Team From Orange County Law Firm
2 minute readCrypto Entrepreneur Claims Justice Department’s Software Crackdown Violates US Constitution
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1John Deere Annual Meeting Offers Peek Into DEI Strife That Looms for Companies Nationwide
- 2Why Associates in This Growing Legal Market Are Leaving Their Firms
- 3Visa's Defense of DOJ Antitrust Case Suffers Setback After Court Denies Motion to Dismiss
- 4Greenberg Traurig Combines Digital Infrastructure and Real Estate Groups, Anticipating Uptick in Demand
- 5Trump Administration Faces Legal Challenge Over EO Impacting Federal Workers
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250