A man who allegedly saw a parrot bite off and eat part of his toddler son's finger at a Florida resort has filed a “bystander” lawsuit for emotional distress damages –- even though he may have helped provoke the bird's attack.

The parrot, a Blue-and-Gold Macaw, was an attraction at the Tiki Bar restaurant in the Palm Beach Shores resort. On Oct. 6, 2009, it allegedly attacked 14-month-old Gavin Williams after he extended his hand toward its cage, biting his index finger as his father tried to free him from its grasp.

The father, Ryan Williams, has now filed a complaint in which he alleges the resort is not only liable for Gavin's gruesome injury because it kept a dangerous parrot on its premises but also his own emotional distress resulting from witnessing the attack.

“Plaintiff, Ryan Williams, observed the disturbing and grotesque consumption of his toddler son's finger by this wild and vicious Blue-and-Gold Macaw parrot that Defendant maintained on its premises,” the suit says, leaving nothing to the imagination.

In Florida, damages for negligent infliction of emotional distress are available to those who witness the death or injury of a loved one. In 2002, an Alabama jury awarded $3,000 to a woman who was bitten in the face by a parrot at a pet store, but there is no precedent for a witness-to-a-parrot-attack case.

According to the complaint, the Williams family was dining at the Tiki Bar when Ryan took his son to see the parrot. “[W]ithout warning or provocation,” the suit says, the macaw “swooped from its perch and grasped Gavin Williams' left index finger in its beak.”

“Fearing for his son's safety,” Ryan took the beak in his own hand but while he was trying to free Gavin's finger, the parrot “viciously bit down on [it] ... and in doing so, tragically amputated a portion of [it].”

The suit seeks at least $15,000 in damages and alleges Palm Beach Shores was negligent in, among other things, failing to warn the Williams family of “the dangerous propensities” of the parrot, placing them at a table in close proximity to it, and not securing it in a cage that prevented children from “placing their fingers near or inside the parrot's cage attraction.”

Under common law, the owner or keeper of a wild animal may be strictly liable to one injured by such an animal. “[I]n actions for injuries by such beasts it is not necessary to allege that the owner knew them to be mischievous, for he is presumed to have such knowledge, from which it follows that he is guilty of negligence in permitting the same to be at large,” the North Carolina Supreme Court said in State v. Smith, 72 S.E. 321 (1911).

But Palm Beach Shores could argue that Ryan Williams acted irresponsibly in allowing Gavin to put his finger "near or inside" the parrot's cage. By grabbing the bird's beak, moreover, he may have provoked it to bite the boy rather than let him go.

"What in the world would possess a parent to allow a child to stick a finger in a cage containing a macaw?" asks a contributor to an online forum for parrot owners. "... He placed his child in danger and is directly responsible for what happened."

It is also unclear whether the Blue-and-Gold Macaw –- as a species –- is naturally vicious or aggressive. Exotic bird experts say proper care should eliminate any behavior problems, with one website concluding, “In general, the Blue and Gold Macaw is an extremely social, adaptable, and intelligent bird that is well suited for family life.”

Ryan Williams doesn't say specifically that the Tiki Bar parrot had previously bitten a guest, alleging only that it had a “propensity to bite those who came into close proximity to it.”

The Maryland Court of Appeals upheld a judgment awarded to a woman who was bitten by a pet store parrot but in that case the bird had been let loose while its cage was being cleaned. May Co. v. Drury, 153 A. 61 (1931). In the Alabama case, the parrot was also out of its cage and had not previously attacked a customer.

By Matthew Heller
3/13/10