Civil Actions - Tortious Injury to or Death of Pet - Compensatory Damages (Buddy's Law)
Summary
HB438, known as Buddy’s Law, increases the cap on compensatory damages available to a pet owner when a person tortiously injures or kills a pet. Under current Maryland law, an owner may recover compensatory damages for the fair market value of a pet that dies, plus reasonable and necessary veterinary costs, or veterinary costs for an injured pet; this bill raises the maximum recovery from $10,000 to $25,000. The bill applies to domesticated animals and expressly excludes livestock.
The measure amends Section 11-110 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article of the Annotated Code of Maryland and takes effect October 1, 2025. In practical terms, it expands the potential civil liability of a person who causes harm to a pet, whether acting directly or through an animal under their ownership, direction, or control. It does not create a new cause of action, but it increases the amount of money that may be awarded in existing pet-injury and pet-death cases.
Impact
HB438 changes Maryland civil damages law by amending the statutory cap on compensatory damages for tortious injury to or death of a pet from $10,000 to $25,000. The bill affects pet owners, defendants in civil negligence or tort cases involving animals, and courts applying Section 11-110 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article. It leaves intact the existing definition of compensatory damages and the exclusion for livestock, while increasing the financial exposure in covered cases.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have received strong, bipartisan support and little visible opposition. It passed the House 138-0 and the Senate 47-0, indicating broad agreement that the existing cap was too low or that pet owners should have greater recovery when a pet is seriously harmed or killed. No committee transcript was provided, but the unanimous votes suggest a generally favorable sentiment around the measure.
Contention
No major contention is evident in the available record. The only substantive policy choice reflected in the bill is the increase in the damages cap, which could be viewed as benefiting pet owners while increasing liability for those found responsible for harming a pet. Because the bill passed unanimously in both chambers and no committee debate is available, there is no indication of organized opposition or significant disagreement over the scope of the increase, the definition of pet, or the exclusion of livestock.