Duren v. Kunkel
1991 WL 176322, 814 S.W.2d 935, 1991 Mo. LEXIS 93 (1991)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An owner of a domestic animal who does not know of its abnormally dangerous propensities may still be liable for harm caused by the animal's normal dangerous characteristics under a theory of ordinary negligence.
Facts:
- Ohmer Kunkel purchased a mature, 1800-pound limousin bull, telling Bernard Duren he bought it 'a little cheaper' because it 'acted up' in the sale ring.
- After bringing the bull to his farm, Kunkel kept it in a separate pen for several days until it 'settled down.'
- Over a year later, Duren was at Kunkel's farm helping separate cattle for castration and immunization, a task for which the two farmers often exchanged labor.
- Kunkel directed Duren to single-handedly move the bull out of a corral.
- To move the bull, Duren had to drive it past an area where 15-20 calves had just been castrated, leaving a significant amount of fresh blood on the ground.
- As Duren drove the bull near the blood, the bull turned and attacked him, causing substantial and permanent injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- Bernard Duren sued Ohmer Kunkel in a Missouri trial court for personal injuries.
- The case was tried before a jury, which found Duren and Kunkel each 50% at fault and assessed total damages at $200,000.
- The trial court entered a judgment for Duren for $100,000.
- Kunkel appealed the judgment to the Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, arguing the trial court should have granted his motion for a directed verdict.
- Following the opinion of the intermediate appellate court, the Supreme Court of Missouri granted transfer to hear the case.
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 the owner of a domestic animal, who lacks knowledge of an abnormally dangerous propensity sufficient for strict liability, still owe a duty of ordinary care to prevent foreseeable harm to others caused by the animal's known normal dangerous characteristics?
Opinions:
Majority - Holstein, J.
Yes. Even if a plaintiff cannot prove the owner had knowledge of an animal's abnormally dangerous propensities for a strict liability claim, the owner can still be held liable for negligence. The court reasoned that while strict liability requires showing the owner knew of an animal's dangerous tendencies 'abnormal to its class,' a separate cause of action exists for negligence. An owner has a duty to exercise ordinary care to prevent foreseeable harm from the animal's normal dangerous propensities, such as the natural aggressiveness of a bull, especially when aggravated by the smell of blood. In this case, Kunkel owed Duren, as an invitee or employee, a duty to provide a safe work environment, which included providing sufficient manpower to move the bull safely under the circumstances.
Analysis:
This case is significant for clarifying that strict liability and negligence are two distinct and independent theories of recovery for harm caused by domestic animals in Missouri. The decision establishes that a plaintiff's failure to meet the high 'knowledge' standard for strict liability does not bar them from pursuing a claim based on the owner's ordinary negligence. It affirms that owners must take reasonable precautions against foreseeable dangers posed by the normal characteristics of their animals, particularly in a premises liability or employer-employee context. This provides an alternative, and often more viable, path to recovery for individuals injured by domestic animals.
