Decision: A live pet skunk is a product within the meaning of ORS 30.900 et seq.

A person who comes into contact with a rabid skunk but does not suffer physical harm cannot recover for emotional distress in an action based solely on strict product liability under ORS 30.920. Physical harm from being bitten and receiving injections provide a sufficient basis for allegations of emotional distress relating to fear of death under ORS 30.920.

Use of precedent/effect on later cases: This case was one of first impression in Oregon and asked the Court to determine whether or not animals would be covered as products under ORS 30.900 et seq. Different courts in different state had taken opposing approaches to the issue, with some deciding that animals were not products as meant in the product liability statutes because of their mutability and others determining that animals produced to be sold were in fact, products. The Court established that animals could be considered products, which was significant because it meant that strict liability could attach to the sale of those animals.

Effect on business/society: While a case concerning the sale of a rabid pet skunk seems like an almost amusing anomaly, the reality is that establishing strict liability for the sale of animals as products can actually have a very serious impact on the business of agriculture in the United States. While the Court rejected the idea that animals are mutable as a reason not to impose strict liability, the fact remains that animals are mutable. In a strict liability scenario, with a product...

For many people in the business of agriculture, this idea is very frightening. "Livestock producers have always been potentially liable for the livestock that they produce, and their records have always been subject to disclosure with a court order" (Pendergrass, 2007). However, a new identification system the National Animal Identification System (NAIS) would allow for much easier tracking of animals back to their sources. "While the concept and potential ramifications of producing livestock remain the same, there is now a concern about the possibility of establishing a causal connection between the damage caused by a defective animal and a producer who is no longer the owner or in control of that animal" (Pendergrass, 2007). That is exactly what occurred in the described case. Taylor's Pets was no longer in control of the skunk, but they were able to establish that the skunk was rabid when it left Taylor's Pets given what is known about the incubation period for rabies. However, one could see where uncertainties might give rise to liability in scenarios where the original producer did not have factual liability.
References

ORS 30.900 et seq.

Pendergrass, E. (2007). Approaching liability with animal identification. Retrieved November

18, 2011 from The National Agricultural Law Center website: http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org/assets/articles/pendergrass_liability.pdf

Sease v. Taylor's Pets Inc., 700 P2d 1054 (1985).