Michigan Senate Bill SB0390

Michigan 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 6/10/25
• Refer: 6/10/25

Caption

Civil procedure: civil actions; remedies for harm, injury, or death of a service animal; provide for. Amends 1961 PA 236 (MCL 600.101 - 600.9947) by adding sec. 2980.

Summary

SB 390 would add a new section to Michigan’s Revised Judicature Act creating a specific civil cause of action for harm to a service animal. Under the bill, a person would be liable to the owner or handler of a service animal for damages caused by injury to, or death of, the animal, including harm caused by the person or by an animal owned by the person. The bill applies regardless of whether the conduct was intentional, reckless, or negligent. The measure specifies the types of damages that may be recovered, including the value of the service animal if it is killed or can no longer perform its tasks, damage to service-animal equipment, veterinary and related care costs, retraining or rehabilitation costs, and the cost of replacing the animal if necessary. It also allows punitive damages when the conduct was intentional or reckless, as well as attorney fees and actual costs. The bill defines “service animal” by reference to the Michigan Penal Code definition in MCL 750.50a and preserves any other remedies already available under other laws.

Impact

The bill would expand Michigan civil remedies by creating an express statutory damages framework for injury or death of service animals, placing these claims within the Revised Judicature Act. It would give owners and handlers a clearer path to recover both economic losses and, in some cases, punitive damages and attorney fees, potentially increasing liability exposure for individuals whose conduct harms a service animal or whose animal causes such harm. The bill does not replace existing remedies; it supplements them.

Sentiment

Based on the bill text and available context, the measure appears to be generally supportive of service-animal users and aimed at filling a perceived gap in civil remedies. No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no documented legislative debate or formal vote history to indicate broader support or opposition. The structure of the bill suggests a consumer- and disability-protection orientation, with emphasis on compensating owners and handlers for the practical consequences of losing or injuring a service animal.

Contention

The main points of potential contention are the scope of liability and the availability of punitive damages and attorney fees. Opponents could view the bill as expanding civil exposure for accidental or negligent conduct, especially because liability attaches even when the injury is caused by negligence and can extend to harm caused by an animal owned by the defendant. Supporters would likely emphasize the unique role of service animals, the high cost of replacement and retraining, and the need for a dedicated remedy when a service animal is injured or killed. No specific stakeholder positions were included in the provided materials.