Case of Oak Orchard dog moves to civil court
The case involving a Dover man who shot a Oak Orchard family’s dog in 2021 has moved into the realm of civil litigation.
Plaintiffs James and Karen Sekcienski have sued Herbert Manley, the man who shot the Sekcienskis’ dog, Tank, in Oak Orchard, seeking damages for severe emotional distress.
In October, Manley was found not guilty in criminal court of three felonies: cruelty or unnecessarily killing an animal, first-degree reckless endangering, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony.
At trial, Manley, a retired Secret Service officer with decades of weapons training, told the jury that the dog was running loose and was threatening him and his fiancee as they tried to walk down an Oak Orchard street. After running at them twice, Manley testified, the Labrador retriever lunged at him a third time with teeth bared. That’s when he shot the dog with his handgun. Manley’s fiancee, Arlette Ballenger, testified the dog was foaming at the mouth.
The Sekcienskis and several neighbors testified that Tank was a playful puppy who would not hurt anyone.
The civil suit, being contested in Delaware Superior Court, is over the Sekcienskis’ claim that Manley acted outrageously and negligently when he shot Tank and that they experienced severe emotional stress as a result. The Sekcienskis are seeking compensatory and punitive damages.
Meanwhile, Manley filed a motion of summary judgment, arguing that the Sekcienskis claims should be framed as personal injury claims, as Delaware law does not permit emotional distress claims for the loss of a pet. He also denies he acted outrageously or that he targeted the Sekcienskis, and the Sekcienskis can only recover damages for the loss of Tank as personal property, because per Delaware law, pets are considered personal property.
For their part, the Sekcienskis argue that eyewitness testimony supports their claim that Tank was not behaving aggressively toward Manley, that Tank posed no danger to Manley and that Manley shot Tank while knowing him to be someone’s pet.
In a pre-trial order, Judge Jeffrey Clark granted Manley’s motion in part and denied some in part. Clark dismissed the Sekcienskis’ claim of negligent infliction of emotional stress, stating the Sekcienskis had no physical injury or physical manifestation of their emotional distress as a result of Manley’s actions.
However, Clark said, it is up to a jury to decide whether Manley’s conduct rose to the level of outrageousness necessary for the Sekcienskis to receive damages. Clark said the Sekcienskis could still seek damages related to Tank’s market value and veterinary expenses, which they could further pursue.
