Conn. Gen. Stat. » Title 22 — AGRICULTURE. DOMESTIC ANIMALS · Chapter 435 — Dogs and Other Companion Animals. Kennels and Pet Shops
Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 22-351a (2026)

Liability for intentionally killing or injuring companion animal

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) For the purposes of this section, “companion animal” means a domesticated dog or cat that is normally kept in or near the household of its owner or keeper and is dependent on a person for food, shelter and veterinary care, but does not include a dog or cat kept for farming or biomedical research practices.

(b) Any person who intentionally kills or injures a companion animal, except in defense of such person or another person or as otherwise authorized by law, shall be liable to the owner of such companion animal for economic damages sustained by such owner including, but not limited to, expenses of veterinary care, the fair monetary value of the companion animal and burial expenses for the companion animal.

(c) In addition to any economic damages awarded pursuant to subsection (b) of this section, and except as provided in subsection (d) of this section, the court may award punitive damages in an amount not to exceed the jurisdictional monetary limit established by subdivision (1) of subsection (d) of section 51-15, together with a reasonable attorney's fee.

(d) The court shall not assess punitive damages and a reasonable attorney's fee pursuant to subsection (c) of this section against: (1) A veterinarian licensed pursuant to chapter 384 while following accepted standards of practice of the profession, (2) the state or any political subdivision of the state or any employee, officer or agent thereof while acting within the scope of such employee's, officer's or agent's employment or official duties, or (3) an employee of or volunteer for a nonprofit organization or nonprofit corporation organized and operated exclusively for the prevention of cruelty to animals or the protection of stray, abandoned or mistreated animals while acting within the scope of such employee's or volunteer's employment or duties.

(P.A. 04-239, S. 1; P.A. 21-197, S. 14.)

History: P.A. 21-197 amended Subsec. (c) to replace reference to Sec. 51-15(d) with reference to Sec. 51-15(d)(1), effective July 1, 2022.

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)		 (Return to
List of Chapters)		 (Return to
List of Titles)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 2005–2017 · leading case: Harty v. Cantor Fitzgerald & Co., 881 A.2d 139 (Conn. 2005).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Harty v. Cantor Fitzgerald & Co., 881 A.2d 139 (Conn. 2005). · cites it 2× “…in other statutes); compare, e.g., General Statutes § 4d-39; General Statutes § 16-8d; General Statutes § 19a-550; General Statutes § 22-351a; General Statutes § 31-51q; General Statutes § 31-290a; General Statutes § 35-53; General Statutes § 42-110g; General Statutes §…”
Provencher v. Town of Enfield, 936 A.2d 625 (Conn. 2007). · cites it 2× “For example, General Statutes § 22-351 (b) provides that any person who violates that statute “shall be hable to the owner [of a companion animal] in a civil action .”
Estella Robinson v. City of Bluefield, 764 S.E.2d 740 (W. Va. 2014). “97 (“Conn. Gen.Stat. § 22-351a (2009) (originally enacted in 2004); 510 Ill.”
Hammer v. Posta, 155 A.3d 801 (Conn. App. Ct. 2017). · cites it 3× “" General Statutes § 22-351a (a) defines a companion animal as "a domesticated dog or cat that is normally kept in or near the household of its owner or keeper and is dependent on a person for food, shelter and veterinary care, but does not include a dog or cat kept for farming…”
Charles v. Mitchell, 118 A.3d 149 (Conn. App. Ct. 2015). · cites it 2× “13-223 amended the statute to provide that a plaintiff may recover for damages to a companion animal, as defined in General Statutes § 22-351a. Thereafter, the defendant argued that because he was not the ‘‘owner or keeper’’ of the dog, he could not be liable under § 22-357 for…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.