Ponder v. Angel Animal Hospital, Inc.

Missouri Court of Appeals

Ponder v. Angel Animal Hospital, Inc.

762 S.W.2d 846, 1988 Mo. App. LEXIS 1779, 1988 WL 138460

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 28, 1988

Docket15503

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 762 S.W.2d 846 (Ponder v. Angel Animal Hospital, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ponder v. Angel Animal Hospital, Inc., 762 S.W.2d 846, 1988 Mo. App. LEXIS 1779, 1988 WL 138460 (Mo. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

PREWITT, Judge.

Plaintiff asserted that she took her male Chow Chow dog to Angel Animal Hospital, Inc. (Angel) for “the limited purpose of grooming and clipping” but he was instead castrated there due to the “negligence” of defendant Phillip G. Trokey, a doctor of veterinary medicine. Trial commenced before a jury and at the close of plaintiffs evidence the trial judge directed a verdict for defendants. Plaintiff appeals.

The question here is whether sufficient evidence was presented to entitle plaintiff to an award of damages. Generally the measure of damages to animals is their difference in fair market value before and after the injury. Wright v. Edison, 619 S.W.2d 797, 802 (Mo.App.1981). There was no evidence of a reduction in value of the dog due to the castration, or any evidence showing a monetary loss due to it to the plaintiff. Actionable negligence requires proof that the claimant was injured. Wise v. Sands, 739 S.W.2d 731, 734 (Mo.App.1987). Plaintiff failed to prove any such loss.

Appearing to acknowledge that this court may find that she failed to prove any damages, plaintiff states that she should be entitled to receive “at minimum nominal damages, the amount to be determined by the jury”. That contention has no merit. As damages are an element of a cause of action for negligence, nominal damages cannot be awarded on such a claim. Wise, supra 739 S.W.2d at 734. Since there was no evidence of damage to plaintiff, the trial court correctly directed a verdict for defendants.

The judgment is affirmed.

FLANIGAN, P.J., and HOGAN and MAUS, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PREWITT, Judge.

Plaintiff asserted that she took her male Chow Chow dog to Angel Animal Hospital, Inc. (Angel) for “the limited purpose of grooming and clipping” but he was instead castrated there due to the “negligence” of defendant Phillip G. Trokey, a doctor of veterinary medicine. Trial commenced before a jury and at the close of plaintiffs evidence the trial judge directed a verdict for defendants. Plaintiff appeals.

The question here is whether sufficient evidence was presented to entitle plaintiff to an award of damages. Generally the measure of damages to animals is their difference in fair market value before and after the injury. Wright v. Edison, 619 S.W.2d 797, 802 (Mo.App.1981). There was no evidence of a reduction in value of the dog due to the castration, or any evidence showing a monetary loss due to it to the plaintiff. Actionable negligence requires proof that the claimant was injured. Wise v. Sands, 739 S.W.2d 731, 734 (Mo.App.1987). Plaintiff failed to prove any such loss.

Appearing to acknowledge that this court may find that she failed to prove any damages, plaintiff states that she should be entitled to receive “at minimum nominal damages, the amount to be determined by the jury”. That contention has no merit. As damages are an element of a cause of action for negligence, nominal damages cannot be awarded on such a claim. Wise, supra 739 S.W.2d at 734. Since there was no evidence of damage to plaintiff, the trial court correctly directed a verdict for defendants.

The judgment is affirmed.

FLANIGAN, P.J., and HOGAN and MAUS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

762 S.W.2d 846, 1988 Mo. App. LEXIS 1779, 1988 WL 138460, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ponder-v-angel-animal-hospital-inc-moctapp-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack