Idaho

Summary: This appeal concerns the valuation of a companion animal and the availability of emotional distress damages arising from its wrongful death. The plaintiff sought to recover for the shooting and disposal of her dog, Stanley, advancing multiple tort theories including conversion, trespass to chattels, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The central legal issue was the proper measure of damages for the loss of a pet, which the court resolved by affirming that, under Idaho law, pets are considered property. Specifically, where a fair market value exists as here, where it was established that Stanley's value was $500, that value is the proper measure for the animal's loss, which precludes a "value to the owner" assessment or loss-of-use damages. Furthermore, the court adhered to precedent limiting the recovery of emotional distress damages for the loss of a pet strictly to the independent torts of negligent or intentional infliction of emotional distress, and not through property-based torts like conversion. While the district court's nominal damages award for intentional infliction of emotional distress was upheld, its dismissal of the negligent infliction claim was reversed due to insufficient findings. The appellate court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings specifically on the negligent infliction of emotional distress claim.

Summary: This Idaho case addresses the recoverable damages for a pet owner following the death of a pet due to alleged veterinary malpractice and an unauthorized necropsy. The Schrivers sought non-economic damages, including emotional distress and loss of companionship, after their cat, Gypsy, died during a veterinary procedure and was subjected to a necropsy without their consent. The district court denied emotional distress damages under their trespass to chattels/conversion claim and granted summary judgment in favor of the veterinarian on claims for negligent infliction of emotional distress, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and lack of informed consent. The court, however, applied the “value to owner” measure for economic damages, which the veterinarian cross-appealed. The court affirmed that pets are considered personal property under Idaho law, and damages for their loss are limited to economic value, excluding sentimental value or loss of companionship. Emotional distress damages are not recoverable under trespass to chattels or conversion claims but may be pursued under independent torts like intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court upheld the denial of negligent infliction of emotional distress, finding no duty of care owed by veterinarians to prevent emotional harm to pet owners. However, the court reversed the grant of summary judgment on the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim regarding the unauthorized necropsy, remanding it for jury determination as to whether the conduct was “extreme and outrageous.” The court also affirmed that lack of informed consent is not a standalone cause of action in veterinary malpractice cases, though it may inform claims of professional negligence. Finally, the court upheld the “value to owner” measure for economic damages, clarifying that it includes the pet’s unique characteristics but excludes sentimental value. The court denied the veterinarian’s request for attorney fees, as the primary issues of the litigation remain unresolved.

Summary: All dogs and cats imported into the state of Idaho must be accompanied by a CVI. Dogs and cats twelve (12) weeks of age or older shall be vaccinated for rabies.

Summary: This Idaho law gives the authority to the mayor and city council to do things like regulate the running at large of domesticated animals, to impound animals running at large, and to manage pounds for such animals.

Summary: This Idaho law deals with liens livery or boarding or feed stable proprietors and others pasturing livestock who have a lien. If the liens are not paid within sixty days after the work is done, service rendered, or feed or pasturing supplied, the person in whose favor such special lien is created may proceed to sell the property at a licensed public livestock auction market, or if the lien is on equines, to sell the animals at a sale offered to the public, after giving ten days' notice to the owner or owners of the livestock and the state brand inspector. Requirements for proper notice are provided in the law.

Summary: This statutes provides that when a child is summoned in a criminal matter, a parent, counselor, friend, or a facility dog may stay in the courtroom during the child's testimony, unless the court finds that the defendant will be unduly prejudiced. When a child is summoned to witness in any non-criminal matter, a facility dog will be allowed to remain in courtroom during the child's testimony.

Summary: The Idaho Emergency Operations Plan has several mentions of both household pets and livestock animals throughout the plan. Example of these provisions are provided below together with a copy of the most recent EOP from 2023.

Summary: This is a short overview of Idaho Great Ape law.

Summary: In Idaho, gorillas, chimpanzees, bonobos, orangutans, gibbons, and all other nonhuman primates are classified as “deleterious exotic animals” which are dangerous to the environment, livestock, agriculture, or wildlife of the state. As a result of this classification, it is illegal to import or possess an ape without a Deleterious Exotic Animal permit issued by the Idaho State Department of Agriculture (ISDA). The following discussion begins with a general overview of the various state statutes and regulations affecting Great Apes. It then analyzes the applicability of those laws to the possession and use of apes for specific purposes, including their possession as pets, for scientific research, for commercial purposes, and in sanctuaries.

Summary: This proposed amendment would provide that the rights to hunt, fish and trap are a valued part of Idaho's heritage and would preserve these rights for the people of Idaho and manage these rights through the laws of the state. This amendment specifies that hunting, fishing and trapping shall be a preferred means of managing wildlife. This amendment does not create a right to trespass or affect rights to divert or appropriate water. This amendment also will not prevent the suspension or revocation of licenses issued by the state for hunting, fishing or trapping. The measure was passed by 73.4% of voters.