"Parrot Fever" Suit May Not Fly

National News

The family of a Texas man who allegedly died of a disease contracted from a sick cockatiel has sued PetSmart for wrongful death, but the fate of similar cases around the country suggests their products liability theory will not fly.

The cockatiel that Amanda de la Garza bought from the Corpus Christi PetSmart store on Sept. 30, 2006 was allegedly suffering from a bacterial infection that crossed over to her father and caused him to be infected with the disease psittacosis, also known as “parrot fever.” Joe de la Garza, 63, died of psittacosis two weeks later.

At least five states have rejected products liability claims against pet stores for selling a defective animal, with courts in Missouri and Ohio taking that position in cases involving parrots. “We ... conclude that a parrot is not a product for purposes of products liability,” the Ohio Court of Appeals said in Malicki v. Koci, 700 N.E.2d 913 (1997).

But in a petition filed earlier this month, the de la Garza family allege that at the time “the bird left the hands of PetSmart, Inc,, the bird was diseased, defective, and unreasonably dangerous” and its defective condition was “a producing cause” of the death of Joe de la Garza.

“As a result, PetSmart, Inc. is strictly liable to the Plaintiffs herein,” the suit says.

A PetSmart representative told KIII-TV in Corpus Christi that the company is not aware of any confirmed cases of humans contracting psittacosis from humans. The de la Garzas insist that “The diseases of birds can cross over to the human population and can cause disease in the people who buy the birds.”

Amanda de la Garza also fell ill and was hospitalized “as a result of psittacosis,” the suit alleges. But whatever the scientific facts may be, PetSmart could argue that it cannot be sued for products liability as a matter of law.

In the seminal case of Whitmer v. Schneble, 331 N.E.2d 115 (1975), the Illinois Appellate Court ruled that an animal could not be a product since its "nature" is not "fixed" when it leaves the hands of a seller.

The Missouri Court of Appeals agreed with that view in rejecting a products claim filed by a parrot buyer who allegedly contracted psittacosis from the bird. “It seems unreasonable for us to hold a seller liable for changes potentially wrought upon a 'product' by the purchaser, while the item was completely outside the seller's control,” it said in Latham v. Wal-Mart Stores, 818 S.W.2d 673 (1991).

New York, Connecticut and Oregon have ruled otherwise. As a New York trial judge said in Beyer v. Aquarium Supply Co., 404 N.Y.S.2d 778 (1997),

[T]here is no reason why a breeder, distributor or vendor who places a diseased animal in the stream of commerce should be less accountable for his actions than one who markets a defectively manufactured product. The risk presented to human well-being is as great and probably greater than that created by a defectively manufactured product.
But in the most recent case on point -- Blaha vs. Stuard, 640 N.W.2d 85 (2002) --- the South Dakota Supreme Court found a dog was not a product. And you can expect the generally conservative, pro-business Texas courts to follow the Whitmer line of cases.

The de la Garzas also allege that PetSmart and Rainbow Exotics, a Waco bird supplier, are liable for negligent inspection and handling of the cockatiel and failing to warn Amanda de la Garza that “bird disease could affect humans.”

Amanda, the suit says, noticed the bird “was subdued and had separated itself from the other birds offered for sale,” but “was told that the bird was having a 'bad day.'”

Plaintiffs have recently sued PetSmart in Massachusetts and Rhode Island, alleging family members died as a result of receiving organs from donors which had been infected with a virus contracted from pet hamsters. Those cases, however, do not allege products liability.

Related listings

  • Naked Cowboy Sues M&M's

    Naked Cowboy Sues M&M's

    National News 06/24/2008

    "This is the case of The Naked Cowboy versus The Blue M&M," afederal judge wrote in allowing The Naked Cowboy's lawsuit against Marscandy and Chute Gerdeman ad agency to proceed. "Plaintiff Robert Burckis a 'street entertainer' who performs in Ne...

  • Supreme Court weighs whales vs war preparation

    Supreme Court weighs whales vs war preparation

    National News 06/24/2008

    The Supreme Court will have the final say on whether war preparation trumps whale protection.Acting at the Bush administration's urging, the court agreed Monday to review a federal appeals court ruling that limited the use of sonar in naval training ...

  • Fight over White House subpoenas heads to court

    Fight over White House subpoenas heads to court

    National News 06/23/2008

    Congress issued its demands. The White House refused. Now it's up to a federal judge to settle a dispute over documents and testimony regarding fired federal prosecutors.Lawyers for the White House and Congress were headed to court Monday to argue th...

USCIS Will Begin Accepting CW-1 Petitions for Fiscal Year 2019

On April 2, 2018, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will begin accepting petitions under the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI)-Only Transitional Worker (CW-1) program subject to the fiscal year (FY) 2019 cap. Employers in the CNMI use the CW-1 program to employ foreign workers who are ineligible for other nonimmigrant worker categories. The cap for CW-1 visas for FY 2019 is 4,999.

For the FY 2019 cap, USCIS encourages employers to file a petition for a CW-1 nonimmigrant worker up to six months in advance of the proposed start date of employment and as early as possible within that timeframe. USCIS will reject a petition if it is filed more than six months in advance. An extension petition may request a start date of Oct. 1, 2018, even if that worker’s current status will not expire by that date.

Since USCIS expects to receive more petitions than the number of CW-1 visas available for FY 2019, USCIS may conduct a lottery to randomly select petitions and associated beneficiaries so that the cap is not exceeded. The lottery would give employers the fairest opportunity to request workers, particularly with the possibility of mail delays from the CNMI.

USCIS will count the total number of beneficiaries in the petitions received after 10 business days to determine if a lottery is needed. If the cap is met after those initial 10 days, a lottery may still need to be conducted with only the petitions received on the last day before the cap was met. USCIS will announce when the cap is met and whether a lottery has been conducted.

Business News

Clayton, MO Federal Criminal Defense Attorney The Law Offices of John M. Lynch, LLC, provides strong representation for clients with federal criminal defense. >> read
DuPage IL worker's comp lawyers The law firm of Krol, Bongiorno & Given, Ltd. has been a leader in the field of workers’ compensation law in DuPage, Illinois. >> read