Andrade v. Shiers
564 So. 2d 787, 1990 WL 84455 (1990)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Louisiana law, while an owner of a domesticated animal is strictly liable for harm caused by the animal, a plaintiff's unreasonable 'victim fault' that substantially causes the injury does not completely bar recovery but instead reduces the owner's liability under comparative fault principles.
Facts:
- Jesus Andrade, a resident alien with no property or income, moved to live with his daughter, Ramona Shiers, and son-in-law, Jesse Shiers, in Louisiana in August 1984, becoming entirely dependent on them for food and shelter.
- The Shiers owned some cattle that they raised on a small fenced area through which the Boeuf River flowed.
- On May 31, 1985, Andrade was alone in the pasture and observed a two-hour-old calf nearing the mud at the river bank, with its mother cow a short distance away.
- Andrade, believing the calf was in danger of getting stuck or drowning, picked up the calf and carried it about 40 feet away from the muddy river bank.
- Immediately after Andrade put the calf down, the mother cow attacked him, causing personal injury.
- Andrade had years of experience with cows and calves and knew or should have known that handling a newly-born calf without securing the mother cow could provoke an attack.
Procedural Posture:
- Jesus Andrade sued Jesse Shiers, Ramona Shiers, and Southern Farm Bureau Insurance Company in a Louisiana state trial court for personal injury damages.
- The trial court issued a judgment rejecting Andrade's demands against the homeowners (Jesse and Ramona Shiers) and their liability insurer (Southern Farm Bureau Insurance Company), concluding Andrade's conduct constituted 'victim fault' legally sufficient to bar recovery.
- Andrade, as plaintiff-appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a plaintiff's unreasonable conduct, which substantially causes a domesticated animal to attack, totally bar recovery against the animal owner under Louisiana Civil Code article 2321, or should the plaintiff's fault be comparatively weighed to reduce damages?
Opinions:
Majority - Marvin, J.
No, a plaintiff's unreasonable conduct that substantially causes a domesticated animal to attack does not totally bar recovery; instead, the plaintiff's fault must be comparatively weighed to reduce damages. Louisiana Civil Code Art. 2321 imposes strict liability on animal owners, meaning they are presumed at fault for harm caused by their animals. However, the court clarified that 'victim fault' – conduct that is a substantial factor in causing the injury by provoking or facilitating the attack – no longer acts as a complete bar to recovery, as was the case with contributory negligence. Citing Howard v. Allstate Ins. Co., the court held that comparative fault under CC Art. 2323 applies to strict liability cases involving domesticated animals. Therefore, while Andrade's conduct was unreasonable and a substantial cause of his injury, his recovery should be reduced by his percentage of fault, rather than completely barred. The court allocated 80% of the fault to Andrade and 20% to the Shiers. The court affirmed the trial court's finding that Andrade was a 'dependent resident of the insured's household' and thus excluded from recovering under the liability provisions of the Shiers' homeowners' insurance policy.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the application of comparative fault to strict liability claims under Louisiana Civil Code article 2321 for injuries caused by domesticated animals. By explicitly rejecting the pre-comparative fault notion of 'victim fault' as a total bar, the court ensures that even plaintiffs who contribute to their own injury can recover damages, albeit in a reduced amount. This ruling emphasizes a more nuanced approach to liability, balancing the animal owner's strict liability with the plaintiff's responsibility for their actions. It sets a precedent that encourages a detailed allocation of fault in such cases, rather than an all-or-nothing outcome.
