California Court of Appeal

Reset A A Font size: Print

McMahon v. Craig, G040324

In an action for veterinary malpractice and intentional infliction of emotional distress, trial court judgment sustaining defendants' demurrer to plaintiff's cause of action is affirmed where: 1) emotional distress damages for negligence are not available to plaintiff because she was neither a witness nor a direct victim of defendant's negligent acts; 2) the court did not err in sustaining demurrers to plaintiff's claims for intentional infliction for emotional distress as none of defendant's alleged acts were done in her presence or directed at her, and the alleged conduct was not so extreme or outrageous to support a cause of action; and 3) the court did not err in striking plaintiff's loss of companionship allegations as California law does not allow a pet owner to recover for loss of the companionship of a pet.

Appellate Information

  • Decided 07/31/2009
  • Published 07/31/2009

Judges

Court

  • California Court of Appeal

Counsel

  • For Appellant:
  • Gail M. McMahon, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant., Schiff Hardin and Bruce A. Wagman, San Francisco, as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant., Shook, Hardy & Bacon, Paul B. La Scala, Irvine, Victor E. Schwartz and Philip S. Goldberg for California Veterinary Medical Association et al. as Amici Curiae.

  • For Appellees:
  • Wallace, Brown & Schwartz and George M. Wallace for Defendants and Respondents.
Copied to clipboard