This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P took Murphy to D for pet grooming services. Two days prior, a veterinarian had examined Murphy and determined the dog was in good health. Murphy appeared healthy when P left her at D. P retrieved the dog and paid the $30 bill. Murphy was acting strangely and was limping. P immediately returned to the business and D denied any responsibility for Murphy's injury. Murphy underwent surgery to repair a dislocated hip. P incurred veterinary bills totaling $1,308.89. P filed a small claims petition for damages. Following a trial, judgment was entered for $1,308.89 plus court costs. D appealed. The district court ruled that 'a pet is different than a motor vehicle or a piece of machinery or other items of personal property in that a pet has no real market value.' D contends the damages awarded should be limited to Murphy's market value.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.