Sease v. Taylor\'s Pets, Inc.

Sease v. Taylor's Pets, Inc.

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

Rule of Law: A live rabid pet skunk is a product within the meaning of Oregon's product liability statute, ORS 30.900. Therefore, people can recover for direct injuries as well as emotional distress if they are actually injured by the rabid skunk, but cannot recover for emotional distress if there are no underlying physical injuries.

Facts: On June 21, 1979, Janice bought a pet skunk from defendant Perfected Pets, Inc., which it had purchased from Taylor's Pets. Janice kept the skunk in her home and took it to the homes of the other plaintiffs. Nine or ten days after purchase, the skunk began to attack and bite people, lose fur, and develop sores on its body. It bit Paula, Janice, and Shirley, but did not bite Nora, Brad, or Betty who all came into contact with its saliva. After the skunk died, an autopsy revealed the skunk was rabid, and that it had probably been in the incubation stage of rabies when it left the pet farm in Minnesota. Everyone but Brad had the series of preventative rabies vaccines; his physician advised against them because of his history of allergies.

Issues: The case presents three different issues for consideration, all of which focus on strict liability in a retail scenario. First, is a live pet skunk a product within the meaning of Oregon's product liability statute, ORS 30.900 et seq. Second, can a person who comes into contact with a rabid skunk but does not suffer physical harm recover for emotional distress in an action based solely on strict product liability? Third, can physical harm from being bitten and receiving injections provide a sufficient basis for allegations of emotional distress relating to fear of death in a strict liability scenario?

Opinion: Nora, Paula, and Brad's complaint was based on strict products liability under ORS 30.920. Shirley, Janice, and Betty alleged breach of warranty in addition to strict liability. Whether a live animal was a product under ORS 30.900 et seq. was a question of first impression in Oregon, and the Court looked to decisions in different states to help determine whether the .

The Court stated that ORS 30.920 was meant to be construed in accordance with the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A, which stated that products do not have to be manufactured or processed. Moreover, the Court rejected the idea that mutability would take live animals out of the meaning of the statute and held that the skunk purchased by Janice was a product under ORS 30.900 et seq. The skunk was an object possessing intrinsic value that was produced for introduction into trade or commerce.

Under ORS 30.920(1), a seller has strict liability for any physical harm caused by the defective merchandise. The Court agreed with the defendants that Brad did not suffer a physical harm. The Court found that under ORS 30.920 a plaintiff cannot recover for emotional distress without also establishing a physical harm. While Brad was exposed to an increased risk that he would suffer physical harm because of his contact with the rabid skunk, he did not actually suffer a physical harm. He may have been entitled to those damages if he had filed a breach of warranty claim, which permits damages for emotional stress without an underlying physical injury, but Brad did not file a breach of warranty complaint, but merely a strict liability complaint.

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.