Your dogs in fact killed ten of your emotional support hens.
I call them my girls.
[narrator] Now, on Tribunal Justice...
Your two dogs are just mauling on these chickens.
The chickens allowed me to kind of be at peace for a minute or two or ten.
Nobody can really say how much somebody is struggling with something.
Keeping these chickens was actually a recommendation of his doctor.
He typed that up.
The man served our country.
And you challenge whether or not he's telling the truth?
Did you ever serve in the military?
Shame on you.
[narrator] Today's case was filed in Chico, California.
Your Honor, this is Case #3094 on the calendar
in the matter of McKinsey v. Hunt/Dwelle.
Parties have been sworn in, Judge, you may be seated.
Ladies, have a seat, please.
-[Levy] Thank you, Byrd. Mr. McKinsey. -[Byrd] Mm-hm.
You're here suing both Mr. Hunt...
-Correct. -...and Mr. Dwelle.
-Dwelle. -For $10,000.
Because it was Mr. Dwelle’s two dogs that left his property
and killed 10 of your emotional support hens.
You're suing Mr. Hunt, because he is the owner of the property,
and he rents his property to Mr. Dwelle.
And you're suing them for negligent infliction of emotional distress,
-as well as straight negligence. -Correct.
Mr. Dwelle and Mr. Hunt, it's your combined position
that you owe nothing, because the homeowner association rules
prohibit chickens on anyone's property.
You also indicated that you offered Mr. Dwelle $300,
the cost to replace them,
because you do not dispute that your dogs in fact, killed the chickens, correct?
-Yes, they did. -And that offer was rejected.
-Right. -[Levy] Okay.
Let's start right in the beginning.
Mr. McKinsey, according to your complaint, you are an Air Force veteran,
and you were honorably discharged after suffering
-a catastrophic injury while on duty. -Correct.
You were diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder
due, in part, to your military service and the injury that you received.
I received that diagnosis in 1984 when the accident occurred.
Um, I got diagnosed with PTSD and depression.
Were you, in fact, under the care of a duly licensed physician and psychiatrist
for that disorder and depression?
Yes, sir, since 1984.
-And that's been continuous? -Yes, sir.
When did you purchase these--?
And I use the word "chicken," but they're really hens.
I call them my girls.
When was it that you purchased your girls?
March of 2023, at two days old.
Let's take a look at video
that you provided us with prior to coming in today, P2.
Can you tell us what you provided?
We had a big bin probably about the size of the table,
and I had a heat lamp in there you keep it a certain temperature,
and there's 12 hens. At that time, they were probably four days old.
I raised them like this until they were approximately three months old,
when they had enough feathers to go outside and care for themselves.
Our grandkids, at that time, they would come and play with them.
They would be out of their cage or their container,
and they would-- [voice breaking] They would start playing with the chickens.
And um, and at the time, I was doing poorly with mental health issues.
And it was a way that I could relate to people.
[Levy] And was this a recommendation from your psychiatrist
as a result of your post-traumatic stress disorder diagnoses?
Yes, I think the way he put it was,
"You better get yourself some chickens or a dog or something,
before you really hurt yourself."
Now, you're from the state of California, correct?
-Yes, sir. -The law is not super clear...
-Mm-hmm. -...on what type of damages
you're entitled to. Is it just property,
and therefore you're entitled to nothing but the replacement value?
Or are you entitled to emotional distress,
like you're suing the Defendants for today?
-Mm-hmm. -Some courts say yes, some say no.
It's very fact-specific.
And what I want you to do, I want you to tell us
what some of your symptoms were prior to getting your chickens,
and then after.
I'm not proud of it, but I was extremely abusive to my family with anger and rage.
Um, when I had the chickens, I would be willing to go outside.
I have a fear of going outside because of my anger.
And I was able to go outside and be what I felt would be a human to go outside.
And the neighbors would come over, and we'd help with yard work,
but the chickens allowed me to kind of, I don't know, be at peace
for a minute or two or ten.
I think my therapist said it best about a week ago,
she said, "Brian, you haven't been written up at the VA
for almost a year and a half for not dropping f-bombs."
And she said she was really proud of me for that,
that I had come to the point where I wasn't full of rage and anger.
I'm going to bring your attention now to October 2023.
Did something happen with respect to two of your hens.
Two ladies came to my door and said there's two dogs,
um, that just killed two of your chickens,
that they were throwing them around
and they were rag dolls flying through the air,
and there's feathers everywhere and... [sobbing softly]
I went out, and there was one of them
that was just laying there in pieces just slaughtered...
And there was no evidence at that time in October 2023,
according to your complaint, connecting these--
-No, not at all. -These two dogs-- Right.
But as a result of that incident, you took some protective measures,
according to your complaint, including putting up a security camera.
We had a security camera that I had on my back porch
and pointed it towards there.
Now, something happened on April 13th, 2024, is that correct?
Yes, sir. I was down at my mom's house in the LA area.
She's 85 and wanted to move up near where we're living.
And I was down there helping her sell her house,
pack it up and move up there.
And my wife called me just devastated, crying,
and she said that, um, two dogs had got in there
and just tore-- I mean, I don't know how to say it,
just tore up these...
That's what your wife said. Ma'am, can you please step up?
-Ms. McKinsey? -Yes.
Okay, before I ask you any questions,
I want to direct some questions to you, Mr. Dwelle.
-Yes. -Now, you have two dogs, correct?
-Correct. -Can we put that photograph up, please?
-And those two dogs are Axl and Marvel? -Yes.
Marvel is the Husky mix, the black one with the brown eyes.
-[Levy] Husky mix? -Yes, Shepherd-Husky.
-And Axl is the Shepherd mix, correct? -[Robert] Yes.
German Shepherd, Belgian Malinois and eight percent gray wolf.
Eight percent gray wolf?
Yes.
[narrator] Coming up, on Tribunal Justice...
-Did you see the letter? -[Ken] Yes.
The letter that I was given was not that letter presented for evidence here.
Is there some reason that you doubt the legitimacy of this letter?
Absolutely.
[dramatic music playing]
[theme music playing]
[narrator] Brian McKinsey is suing homeowner Ken Hunt
and his tenant, Robert Dwelle, after Ken's dogs attacked and killed
Brian's emotional support chickens.
Brian wants the cost of the chickens and emotional distress totaling $10,000.
Ken and Robert say Brian rejected their offer to pay for the damages,
so they owe nothing.
Mr. Hunt, you rented to Mr. Dwelle, correct?
Yes, that's correct.
And how long has he been living in your home as of April 13th, 2024?
He'd been living there about, uh, 10 months.
Ten months. And you knew when he moved in, he had these two dogs?
-Correct. -Now, Mr. Dwelle,
April 13th, 2024, the date of this incident,
was not the first time, according to your answer,
-that your dogs got off your property? -Correct.
That had happened how many times before?
About five times prior.
And what, if any, efforts did you make to make sure
that your dogs did not get off your property?
Okay, so the first effort we made
was we put debris over the stump that they were using
to lunge over the fence.
And then after that, that didn't work, so we cut the stump
all the way to the dirt. That did not work.
-[Levy] What else? -Then we got an electric fence...
-All the way around the house? -[Robert] Yeah.
-And they have to wear a collar? -And they have to wear a collar.
-Did they always wear their collars? -Always wore the collars.
There was never a time they did not wear their collars?
When we had it, they wore it all the time.
All the time. Because you'd agree that if there was a time
where they were not wearing their collars, that'd just be negligence on your part.
-Sure, yes. -So I'm asking you now, Ms. McKinsey,
I would like you to tell us what you witnessed on April 13th, 2024.
A bunch of dead chickens, feathers everywhere
and just pieces...
-[Levy] And your husband was not home? -No.
There came a time that you went back in the house,
-and you looked at the video, correct? -Yes.
Let's take a look, please.
Now, listen, this is tough,
especially for you, sir. If you don't wanna watch,
-you most certainly do not have to. -Thank you, Your Honor.
All right? If you would like to step out for a moment,
you're more than welcome to step out.
We don't need you here for this part. Thank you, sir.
So, let's put that up. P1.
-This is your backyard, is it not? -[Jolene] Yes.
-[Levy] Which dog is that? -[Robert] That would be Marvel.
-[Levy] Marvel. -[Robert] And that's Axl.
[Levy] That's Axl.
With the chicken in its mouth going around the other side.
Now, I will note, Sir, that neither of those dogs have collars on them.
-[Robert] That is correct. -[Levy] And your two dogs
-are just mauling on these chickens. -[Robert] Yes.
We had feathers scattered from there all the way across our driveway,
up to the end of the driveway, which is about the length of our motor home,
-our mobile home. -[Levy] Thank you. We can take that down.
And we can have your husband come back in, please?
Thank you.
And now I'm going to pass it to my colleague, Judge Acker.
Thank you very much.
Thank you, Judge. What happened to your dogs?
We surrendered them, and they were euthanized.
So just so we're clear, you've actually, in your answer,
-acknowledged some degree of negligence. -Absolutely.
So Mr. McKinsey is alleging $600,
in, we'll call it property damage, for the chickens themselves.
But he also has a claim for $9,400 in emotional distress damages.
If we find those damages are valid,
why wouldn't you be liable for that?
Well, nobody can really say how much somebody is struggling with something.
Did you hear him? Did you hear his testimony
-about how much he's struggling? -I did.
Could we please put up Exhibit 3? That's the Vet Affairs letter
that the Plaintiff has submitted to show that keeping these chickens
was actually a recommendation of his doctor.
And in fact, sir, it was May 1st, 2023,
and the reason I underscore that date is that
you established what these chickens were and what they meant to you
long before the incident.
But, Sir, one of the elements of the Defendant's defense
that they haven't really gone into here
is that your community doesn't allow you to keep poultry.
[Brian] I was going to mention that.
The POA is like a property owners' association,
and I supplied the letter to them,
and then that gives me the ability to have
-chickens legally. -[Acker] To keep the chickens.
My chickens were contained where they belonged...
Your chickens were-- And I'm sorry to interrupt,
but I just want to make sure that we're underscoring that point.
You are gonna attract coyotes,
and you're going to attract other animals that might pose a danger
to someone's puppy or to another domesticated animal.
So I think there are good reasons for the prohibitions,
but when a doctor says
these chickens are pets that are important to your recovery,
then I think it really takes it out of the realm of that homeowners' prohibition.
Were you about to say something?
-I would like to address that. -Please. Please do.
The doctor did not say that.
-Did you see the letter? -[Ken] Yes.
Not only did I see a letter,
the letter that I was given was not that letter presented for evidence here.
[Acker] Is there some reason that you doubt the legitimacy
or the authenticity of this letter?
[Ken] Absolutely.
I just dug this out and got it after researching what you had to do.
[Acker] Okay.
And it said that a letter by a licensed physician...
Byrd, could you get that, please?
And all this does is to show that they did not follow the protocol
to get a licensed physician to fill out a form,
to put it on a letterhead of the VA, and--
-May I approach the screen over there? -Sure.
And then I'm going to after you make this point,
-I'll pass the case to Judge Di Mango. -[Ken] Okay.
You see how this indicates Department of Veterans Affairs
-right up there in the center... -[Acker] Yes, sir.
...all-centered script? -Yes, sir.
-The blurred out items here... -[Acker] Mm-hmm.
are not that way on the copy of the letter that I was given.
This second line started way the heck over here.
It's right here.
And then they went the third line here.
-[Acker] Byrd, can you get that? -Which made me believe
that the Plaintiff created this letter.
-[Brian] I can address that, if you like. -[Acker] Please do.
When I originally filed the claim, they suggested I try to mediate with Mr. Hunt.
So I just gave him letters,
and what it had done is that when I printed it on my format,
versus the VA, when I downloaded it off of My HealtheVet,
it had shifted the title all the way,
like the column left justification.
And then when I was preparing for court here,
I made the correct one.
Thank you, sir. Thank you. Judge?
I need to bring something up.
-What do want to bring up? -[Ken] He just mentioned
that he typed that up...
I didn't say "typed it up."
-[DiMango] Both of you stop. Okay, look. -I said printed.
That letter was not written in accordance with the veteran rules.
That letter was typed up, it looks like, by somebody at home.
Does that mean you're not going to prevail in this matter?
Absolutely not. It just means you didn't comport with those rules.
Now, for somebody who's so interested in following rules,
let me ask you, sir, both of you were your dogs, were they licensed?
-No. -No. Why weren't your dogs licensed?
[dramatic music playing]
[narrator] Coming up, on Tribunal Justice...
The letter that he provided, while the heading might be off,
your better argument was it wasn't signed.
Your copy is signed.
So, you just made his case.
[theme music playing]
[narrator] Brian McKinsey is suing homeowner Ken Hunt
and his tenant, Robert Dwelle, for $10,000 after Robert's dogs
mauled and killed Brian's emotional support chickens.
But Ken and Robert say chickens are not allowed in their community,
plus they offered to pay for them.
Brian refused, so they owe nothing.
Were your dogs, were they licensed?
-No. -No. Why weren't your dogs licensed?
I'm just pointing out, you know, if you want to really go by strict rules and all,
we can do that across the board, but sometimes the law bends a little bit,
and listens in its attempt to be fair and just.
And by the way, gentlemen, even though your HOA rules prohibit
poultry and chickens and so on, I think that's all superseded
by California's Fair Employment and Housing Act,
which requires that if people have legitimate support animals,
that those animals be permitted.
So that's when these documents will have some more significance
in the course of this case.
But on the other hand, sir, pets are what they call chattel, they're property.
They don't enjoy the same rights that humans have,
-and that holds even for support animals. -Mm.
So there are certain rules and certain laws
that are called negative infliction of emotional distress.
And the reason why that's important is because it's very difficult
to even establish the intentional infliction of emotional distress.
They're called bystander laws, which means if you're walking down the street,
and you have your child with you, and a car comes by
and intentionally crashes into your child.
You're not injured, you're not hurt,
but you are emotionally traumatized by that,
the law has taken a while to carve out an exception to say
if you are a close relative, if you were present at the time of the injury,
and several other factors,
then you could recover under what they call
the bystander law for an intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Very limited.
What you're missing in your case is one, you were not present,
two, your girls are not humans under the law,
and the actions by the Defendants
if we say would be negligent.
Which would mean that there would be no recovery for you
other than the actual out-of-pocket cost of the girls.
Even if you were to show that their acts were intentional,
that he should have had a collar on those dogs
when he lied in this courtroom--
By the way, I know you don't like lying, and he did lie to us
about the fact that the dogs were collared.
'Cause in the video, they were not.
And he's in a bad place, because honestly, we can all make an assessment
that the behavior that we've seen is in dire need
of some sort of outside support,
so that he can maintain his ability to function.
At this point, if my colleagues have other questions, they're gonna continue.
Okay. So, Ma'am, do you have anything to add? Can you help out Mr. Hunt?
Because he seems to think that your husband's malingering.
Well, before he had a very bad anger.
He's picked up lawn mowers and thrown them at the fences and--
Because it wouldn't start.
[Levy] And he got better after he was following the recommendations
of the most recent psychiatrist at the VA in Chico, California, right?
-Yes. -Put up Number 04.
I figured, you know what? I said, "Let me just grab this
just in case one of the litigants makes a moronic argument."
There might be a question with the documentation that she provided
in which she identified his disability,
and the fact that she was specifically recommending chickens.
She, in fact, works at the Department of Veteran Affairs.
And she worked there May 1st, 2023,
consistent with the letter, sir, that you provided.
And I thank you for providing this letter, 'cause quite frankly,
the letter that he provided, while the heading might be off,
your better argument was it wasn't signed.
Your copy is signed. Give it back to him.
Thank you, Byrd.
So you just made his case.
Now, you had that letter in your possession for how long?
Three or four weeks.
Good. Did you ever contact the number
to see if, in fact, she wrote that letter? Yes or no?
-No. -So that argument. Gone.
The man served our country.
Suffered catastrophic injuries. Did you ever serve in the military?
-Yes, I did. -[Levy] You did.
So you have brothers and sisters that you served with
that suffered the same exact things that he does,
and you challenge whether or not he's telling the truth?
Without ever calling his doctor beforehand?
-Shame on you. Shame on you. -I challenge that.
And any effort to undermine
your emotional distress, what you suffered, I think, is deplorable.
I'm done. Judge Acker?
Mr. Hunt, I actually want to sort of give you a minute to respond.
-I know you've had some things to say. -Yes.
The Paradise Pines Property Owners Association
rules and regulations have this regulation
about not having fowls on your property.
Why would they do that? Somebody didn't like chickens?
No. They are bear bait. They are mountain lion bait.
Those are the animals that we live with in our mountain community.
I still believe he caused an endangerment
to his neighbors
and anyone who lives in that area by having the predator bait in his yard.
All right, I don't have anything else. Thank you both.
[DiMango] We're gonna retire to deliberate.
Court now stands in recess. This case will be recalled.
Parties are excused.
[dramatic music playing]
Okay, so the first cause of action
the Plaintiff needs to prove for negligent infliction of emotional distress
that the state of California, as most states do,
are moving away from a plain chattel view.
Recognize the right of owners of emotional support pets
to sue for negligent infliction of emotional distress.
So I believe under that cause of action,
the Defendant's effort, that is the landlord, Mr. Hunt's effort
to argue that the rules of his property owners' association
trump federal and state law that specifically state
that individuals with disabilities, which the Plaintiff has,
are allowed to request a reasonable accommodation for support animals,
even in housing situations where pets are typically restricted.
So, Defendant loses,
because his little property owners of association
does not trump federal and state law.
And shame on him.
Shame on him for trying to throw shade on the letter
and on the testimony of the Plaintiff under these circumstances.
He's just as responsible as his co-defendant, Mr. Dwelle,
who owns the dogs.
So, in my opinion, I believe the Plaintiff has succeeded on both grounds.
Negligent infliction of emotional distress,
and straight negligence with damages.
That's my point.
I feel a little bit compelled to speak in Mr. Hunt's defense,
because I live in the hills and when my dogs were puppies,
my dogs were bait, as puppies they are bait.
I mean, I've seen coyotes walking down my street.
I think the rule makes perfect sense.
You don't have livestock in a community that's urban.
But to your first point,
if we went down an analytical pattern
that said HOA rules could supersede federal and state law,
this country would look a lot different.
My parents would not have been able to buy the house that they bought, perhaps.
Homeowners associations, no matter how well-founded the rules,
do not get to say our rules are bigger than the federal government
or the state government.
So, I agree with your analysis
of the emotional distress claim in this context,
because these animals provided a certain particular value to this Plaintiff.
Even if I had concerns about that letter, I found him credible,
I found his testimony credible, and I found his wife credible.
I have no problem giving him everything he's asking for.
Well, I'm going to start with the negligence claim here.
I think that we all recognize, and anybody watching the Plaintiff would recognize
that he is clearly an individual in need of something for emotional support.
And so, therefore, his need for the emotional support
falls within the federal and state statutes, supersedes the HOA.
I believe that he should be reimbursed at the current market value.
I believe that's the law for each of the hens, and award him under that.
I do not, however, think that California,
nor will I be willing to extend
the negligent infliction of emotional distress claim
on his emotional distress, despite the fact
that he clearly is distressed over the loss of his chickens.
Because, like I said, the individual who was claiming the emotional distress
must be present at the scene where the injury occurs.
I read it as the only people that are required to recover under that
are people who are very close loved ones,
and even that, generally, it's just family members.
So here we're missing, I think, some significant criteria,
which would bring even a human being
within the rules for negligent infliction of an emotional distress.
I think monetarily, he should be reimbursed for each of the chickens,
based on the clear negligence law.
You don't think the special sensitivities of the Plaintiff--
If you did that, more people would recover over deaths of animals
-than they would over human beings... -I--
...'cause most states and including California,
you cannot recover without the things that I said.
And the primary thing is that the person be present on the scene.
-[Levy] So you'll be the dissent? -Correct.
But it's unanimous on the straight negligence cause of action
with economic damages.
And with respect to the verdict
on the negligent infliction of emotional distress,
we are in the majority,
and the Plaintiff succeeds on the $10,000...
Okay, because you guys are the majority.
Otherwise, for me, it's just negligence.
-Okay. Thank you. -Thank you.
[dramatic music playing]
Court is back in session. I remind parties you're still under oath.
-Thank you, Byrd. -Mm-hmm.
All right. Mr. McKinsey, with respect
to the negligent infliction of emotional distress,
Judge DiMango, she was right.
You know, the law is changing
with respect to allowing someone in your position, sir, to sue
and seek emotional distress damages.
The law is moving in favor of, and there are cases that do, in fact,
support someone in your position from making that claim,
so long as you can prove those additional elements that we discussed.
Judge Acker, and I believe you have met your burden in that manner.
And therefore, the judgment is in your favor on that cause of action,
with Judge DiMango dissenting.
The basis of Judge DiMango's dissent
could be found in the zone of danger argument,
that is, that in cases where people do receive emotional distress for animals,
whether it be regular non-emotional support animals,
of for humans, for that matter,
that they must be in the zone of danger. They must have actually witnessed.
You were out of town. What you witnessed was provided to you
by way of a video from your wife.
That was the only way that you saw what had happened.
-Correct. -And that was the basis
of Judge DiMango's dissent.
But that doesn't make much of a difference at the end of the day,
because on both causes of action, you've succeeded
in proving to us your damages of $10,000.
And Mr. Hunt, if every homeowners or property owners' association
could make up their own rules and supersede that,
we'd be in a much different place today than we are.
So with that in mind, a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff for $10,000.
Thank you all for coming.
Court is now concluded, parties are excused.
You may step out.
Yeah, we need to have safety provisions
for the people who choose to live in mountains.
My heart tells me Mr. Hunt's a politician and always will be.
And he goes to the immediate lie.
The bears know.
He used to sit in the cage with them for hours and play with them, whatever.
And now, all he does is find their feathers and body parts still.
It is a tragic situation.
It's been crazy.
[narrator] Someone's dog got you barking mad?
Unleash the hounds of justice. Tribunal Justice.
Find us on social media.
[theme music playing]