Nearly all pet owners in the United States view their pets as part of their families—but courts have been hesitant to back that up in the legal arena.
Last year, a judge in New York City’s Brooklyn borough issued a landmark ruling classifying dogs as legally an immediate family member in a case centering on whether an owner should receive emotional damages in connection with their dog’s death. Most courts still view pets as property—not a family member—but many do allow emotional damages in limited cases as the law continues to evolve.
Why It Matters
The New York case was the first in the U.S. to explicitly apply the phrase “immediate family” to a dog or pet. It’s a move that was celebrated by animal rights groups, which have argued that pets should be entitled to legal rights beyond those of personal property. However, veterinary groups have warned that expanding non-economic damages could reshape liability and insurance costs across the profession.
The belief that pets are part of the family is incredibly common in the United States. A 2023 Pew Research Center poll found that 97 percent of Americans consider their pets as part of their family. A majority—51 percent—even said they believe their pets are on the same level as other humans in their family.
A growing number of countries are moving beyond treating pets as property, granting them legal recognition as family members or sentient beings.
Spain took a major step in 2025 by enacting a landmark law that recognizes pets as ‘sentient beings’ rather than property. This change means courts now consider pets’ welfare in divorce cases, allowing for shared custody, and pets can no longer be used as collateral in mortgages.
This trend is also evident across the European Union, where countries such as France, Portugal, and Germany have adopted laws recognizing animal sentience, influencing family law and custody decisions.
In Canada, while pets are still largely considered property, some provinces have introduced reforms acknowledging their emotional significance, signaling a gradual shift toward family-like status.
Globally, over 40 countries have recognized animal sentience in law, reflecting a cultural and legal movement toward stronger protections for pets. This evolution underscores a global redefinition of family, where pets are increasingly seen as integral members rather than mere possessions.
What to Know
In DeBlase v. Hill, Judge Aaron Maslow relied on the state’s evolving interpretation of “immediate family.” Plaintiffs Trevor and Nan DeBlase filed the suit after their dachshund Duke was struck and killed by a vehicle in July 2023. They argued the driver did not stop at an intersection and negligently struck Duke, killing him instantly and narrowly missing Nan.
The judge’s ruling was narrow, noting that the dog was leashed to the person in danger and she was nearly struck herself. The court did not create broad non-economic damages for all pet injuries.
No other judge in the U.S. has declared dogs to be “immediate family,” but other jurisdictions allow limited recovery for emotional harm or recognize pets as more than property in specific contexts.
States such as Hawaii, Florida, and Washington have permitted damages in narrow circumstances involving malicious or outrageous conduct toward pets. Those rulings have been limited in their scope. Tennessee allows capped non-economic damages for the wrongful death of a pet under its “T-Bo Act.”
Many states have also addressed pets’ rights in divorce cases. States like California, Illinois, Alaska, New Hampshire, Maine, and New York have required courts to consider a pet’s best interests in divorce‑related custody disputes. Pet custody often arises in divorce cases.
Rulings in those states stop short of personhood or full family status, but they mark a shift away from the traditional property model.
Other states, like New Jersey, have rejected bystander recovery for pet deaths.
Most states continue to treat pets as property, limiting damages to market value and veterinary costs. Many courts have explicitly refused to extend emotional‑distress recovery, citing concerns about unpredictable liability and the difficulty of quantifying grief.
What People Are Saying
Judge Aaron Maslow wrote in his ruling: “Thus, considering the various accommodations made for companion animals in general, along with the deep and affectionate bond Plaintiffs shared with their dog, it stands to reason that companion animals, like Duke, could also be recognized, as a matter of common sense, as immediate family. Taking into account the Greene factors, therefore, warrants deeming the family dog an immediate family member for purposes of the zone of danger doctrine.”
The Nonhuman Rights Project wrote in an amicus brief: “Societal norms have evolved such that dogs have become cherished family members in multispecies households, making their untimely deaths acutely heartbreaking and tragic. Because these nonhuman animals hold a special place in society, it is manifestly unjust to deny a negligence victim the ability to recover for their emotional injuries resulting from witnessing the wrongful death of a family dog.”
The American Veterinary Medical Association wrote in a statement: “Veterinarians know as well as anyone the emotional impact that can accompany the loss of a pet. However, allowing for the payment of emotion-based damages can do nothing to address that loss. What it can do, if allowed and then applied more broadly, is drive up the cost of veterinary care. And that will harm pets by making it harder for their owners to provide the medical care they need.”
What Happens Next
Full legal personhood for pets or uncapped emotional damages is not on the near-term horizon.
In short, the U.S. is heading toward a middle ground: recognizing pets’ family-like status in custody, housing, and protective contexts, while cautiously expanding remedies for harm with strict caps and protections for veterinary professionals.