Skip to main content
Part of complete coverage from

Restrain your duck -- or wind up in court

By Danny Cevallos
May 28, 2014 -- Updated 2106 GMT (0506 HKT)
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
  • A woman is suing for more than $250,000 due to attack by a duck
  • Danny Cevallos: The case highlights the standards applied when animals cause harm
  • Domestic animals' owners must know of aggressiveness to be held "strictly liable," he says
  • Cevallos: In case of a wild animal, the owner is assumed to know of the danger

Editor's note: Danny Cevallos is a CNN legal analyst, criminal defense attorney and partner at Cevallos & Wong, practicing in Pennsylvania and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Follow him on Twitter @CevallosLaw. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author.

(CNN) -- A Washington woman is suing her mother's neighbor in Oregon for more than $250,000 to compensate her for pain, suffering and other damages she alleges were inflicted during a traumatic ambush ... by a duck.

Cynthia Ruddell, 62, was visiting her mother's property when, she alleges, a domesticated duck belonging to Lolita Rose attacked her without provocation. In her flight to escape the factious fowl, Ruddell says she fell to the ground, breaking a wrist and spraining an elbow and shoulder. The case and subsequent media reports have highlighted common misunderstandings about tort liability for animals.

Domestic animals: Every duck gets one free nip

Danny Cevallos
Danny Cevallos

In the Beaver State, the owner of a domestic animal is "strictly liable" for the harm caused by the animal as a result of its abnormally dangerous characteristics only if the person knows or has reason to know it is abnormally dangerous.

It's come to be known, somewhat inaccurately, as the "one bite" rule. It's not that every dog really gets one free bite. Instead, if your bichon frisé attacks the pizza delivery guy once, the law says you can no longer deny you don't "know" of Fluffy's dangerous propensities.

"Strict liability" can be thought of as automatic liability, and it's even better for plaintiffs than a theory of negligence. Negligence requires the plaintiff prove some actual wrongdoing or substandard behavior for a defendant to be liable. Strict liability is less common, but it's much better for plaintiffs, because it holds people criminally or civilly liable for the act itself, even if they meant no harm, and acted with the utmost care.

Cevallos: Hands off our data

For all domestic animals, an animal owner may also be liable for injuries under a theory of negligence. Negligence is failing to behave with the level of care that someone of ordinary prudence would have exercised under the same circumstances. Strict liability is automatic -- no matter how much care you took to prevent injury.

Wild animals: Wild owners, strict liability

For wild animals, the rule is different. Sonny Crockett had a pet alligator on "Miami Vice"; Mike Tyson famously spent his money on tigers that slept in his bed. If you're one of these special people who absolutely need a puma or a boa constrictor, know that you will be automatically, strictly liable for any harm to others. Wild animals have not been generally domesticated and are likely, unless restrained, to cause personal injury. In this case, the plaintiff concedes the duck is a domestic one, but interestingly enough, waterfowl actually run the gamut from harmless to "killer."

In the personal-injury world, cases are defined largely by an axis of two factors: liability (how bad or innocent defendant's behavior was) and damages (how badly the plaintiff was hurt). If the duck owner's behavior is deemed negligent, she will be on the hook for all injuries, even if the plaintiff has an "eggshell skull," or is unusually fragile. The Oregon duck attack case would likely be described in the world of plaintiffs' lawyers as "average liability, good damages."

News reports often give undue attention to the dollar amount demanded in a court-filed civil complaint. A complaint is the document that initiates a lawsuit when filed with the court.

Here's what news reports aren't telling you about these pleadings: Lawyers don't pay attention to the amount demanded in a complaint. It has little bearing on the ultimate value of a settlement or a jury award. In fact, in many jurisdictions, a complaint frequently won't demand any specific dollar amount.

On the other hand, if you are in Brooklyn or Queens, complaints routinely demand millions of dollars -- amounts that might seem outlandish in Kalamazoo, Michigan.

For the most part, the dollar amount alleged in the complaint serves only jurisdictional or administrative purposes. For example, for a federal court to have jurisdiction over most personal-injury cases, the plaintiff must demand more than $75,000. In other state courts, the amount demanded helps the court determine how to classify and route the case. Ask any veteran insurance defense attorney: He or she will tell you lawyers don't care about the demand for a precise amount of money. They care about the facts.

And that's how this case will play out. If the duck owner was negligent, or had knowledge of the dangerous nature of this duck, and the duck's behavior foreseeably caused the injuries, the owner will be liable for all those injuries. A broken wrist and an injured rotator cuff have real value as damages, and could actually be "worth" the amount claimed. But the final amount will be determined using tangible medical records and bills -- not by a fanciful number in a pleading.

The law of animal liability is about to become more relevant than ever, as we are increasingly a society that insists upon people bringing their pets with them everywhere: work, restaurants and airports. Soon public places will be full of service poodles, service parrots and service iguanas -- until we just won't care about confirming whether they are really even service animals.

It will happen gradually, but within a few years we won't even notice that we are seated at a fine restaurant next to a German shepherd. Don't believe me? Did you imagine 10 years ago that dogs would be wandering around in airports, using the Cinnabon stand as a fire hydrant? It's coming. Adorable or not, they are still animals, and they still bite, or quack, or attack. I suppose we'll have to learn to bite back.

Follow us on Twitter @CNNOpinion.

Join us on Facebook.com/CNNOpinion.

ADVERTISEMENT
Part of complete coverage on
July 27, 2014 -- Updated 1615 GMT (0015 HKT)
Megan McCracken and Jennifer Moreno say it's unacceptable for states to experiment with new execution procedures without full disclosure
July 26, 2014 -- Updated 1728 GMT (0128 HKT)
Jeff Yang says it's great to see the comics make an effort at diversifying the halls of justice
July 26, 2014 -- Updated 1555 GMT (2355 HKT)
Rick Francona says the reported artillery firing from Russian territory is a sign Vladimir Putin has escalated the Ukraine battle
July 27, 2014 -- Updated 1822 GMT (0222 HKT)
Paul Callan says the fact that appeals delay the death penalty doesn't make it an unconstitutional punishment, as one judge ruled
July 24, 2014 -- Updated 2225 GMT (0625 HKT)
Pilot Robert Mark says it's been tough for the airline industry after the plane crashes in Ukraine and Taiwan.
July 25, 2014 -- Updated 1510 GMT (2310 HKT)
Jennifer DeVoe laments efforts to end subsidies that allow working Americans to finally afford health insurance.
July 26, 2014 -- Updated 1533 GMT (2333 HKT)
Ruti Teitel says assigning a costly and humiliating "collective guilt" to Germany after WWI would end up teaching the global community hard lessons about who to blame for war crimes
July 25, 2014 -- Updated 1245 GMT (2045 HKT)
John Sutter responds to criticism of his column on the ethics of eating dog.
July 25, 2014 -- Updated 1302 GMT (2102 HKT)
Frida Ghitis says it's tempting to ignore North Korea's antics as bluster but the cruel regime is dangerous.
July 25, 2014 -- Updated 1850 GMT (0250 HKT)
To the question "Is Putin evil?" Alexander Motyl says he is evil enough for condemnation by people of good will.
July 24, 2014 -- Updated 1803 GMT (0203 HKT)
Laurie Garrett: Poor governance, ignorance, hysteria worsen the Ebola epidemic in Sierra Leone, Guinea, Liberia.
July 24, 2014 -- Updated 1349 GMT (2149 HKT)
Patrick Cronin and Kelley Sayler say the world is seeing nonstate groups such as Ukraine's rebels wielding more power to do harm than ever before
July 23, 2014 -- Updated 2205 GMT (0605 HKT)
Ukraine ambassador Olexander Motsyk places blame for the MH17 tragedy squarely at the door of Russia
July 24, 2014 -- Updated 1142 GMT (1942 HKT)
Mark Kramer says Russia and its proxies have a history of shooting down civilian aircraft, often with few repercussions
July 24, 2014 -- Updated 1853 GMT (0253 HKT)
Les Abend says, with rockets flying over Tel Aviv and missiles shooting down MH17 over Ukraine, a commercial pilot's pre-flight checklist just got much more complicated
July 24, 2014 -- Updated 1317 GMT (2117 HKT)
Mark Kramer says Russia and its proxies have a history of shooting down civilian aircraft, often with few repercussions
July 24, 2014 -- Updated 1637 GMT (0037 HKT)
Gerard Jacobs says grieving families and nations need the comfort of traditional rituals to honor the remains of loved ones, particularly in a mass disaster
July 24, 2014 -- Updated 1413 GMT (2213 HKT)
The idea is difficult to stomach, but John Sutter writes that eating dog is morally equivalent to eating pig, another intelligent animal. If Americans oppose it, they should question their own eating habits as well.
July 23, 2014 -- Updated 1630 GMT (0030 HKT)
Bill van Esveld says under the laws of war, civilians who do not join in the fight are always to be protected. An International Criminal Court could rule on whether Israeli airstrikes and Hamas rocketing are war crimes.
July 23, 2014 -- Updated 1408 GMT (2208 HKT)
Gordon Brown says the kidnapped Nigerian girls have been in captivity for 100 days, but the world has not forgotten them.
ADVERTISEMENT