Legal Opinion

Lockett v. Hill

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided July 3, 2002No. 00C-14419; A115245PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSchuman, J.

Defendant’s dogs killed plaintiffs’ cat. The trial court found that defendant was negligent and awarded plaintiffs $1,000 in compensatory damages but denied plaintiffs’ claims for negligent infliction of emotional distress and loss of companionship. Plaintiffs appeal, arguing that they should be compensated for emotional distress resulting from witnessing the death of their pet. We affirm.

Although defendant’s answer denied all of the allegations in plaintiffs’ complaint, defendant did not appear at trial to offer any evidence contradicting plaintiffs’ testimony or affidavits. Nor did…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Nearing v. WeaverOregon Supreme Court · 1983
  2. Hammond v. Central Lane Communications CenterOregon Supreme Court · 1991
  3. Curtis v. MRI IMAGING SERVICES IIOregon Supreme Court · 1998
  4. MacCa v. General Telephone Co. of Northwest, Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 1972
  5. Raymond v. Southern Pacific CompanyOregon Supreme Court · 1971

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Philibert v. KluserOregon Supreme Court · 2016
  2. Carla Strickland v. Kathryn and Jeremy MedlenTexas Supreme Court · 2013
  3. Womack v. Von RardonCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2006
  4. Womack v. Von RardonCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2006
  5. Tomlinson v. Metropolitan Pediatrics, LLCCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2015

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API