Even though a judge described the plaintiff's evidence as “meager,” the operator of a traveling zoo has agreed to a settlement with a former motel maid rather than let a jury decide whether she can recover damages for an allergic reaction to the zoo's animals.

Arlin Valdez-Castillo alleged her allergic reaction was a foreseeable result of being exposed to the animals' “dander, urine, feces, excrement and odor” when she cleaned their rooms at the Hampton Inn Miami Airport West. They stayed there for eight days in 2004 during a promotional tour for the Busch Gardens Africa safari theme park.

The zoo's operator, Conservation Ambassadors, argued that holding it liable for an injury that did not result from “actual physical contact” with the animals “would open up the floodgates of litigation” against animal owners.

But the parties reached a confidential settlement after a judge ruled Feb. 27 that Valdez-Castillo could go to trial on a negligence claim. The settlement evidently involved money as a court document refers to the "proceeds" of the settlement.

U.S. District Judge William P. Dimitrouleas wasn't too impressed with the plaintiff's evidence, which consisted only of scientific articles about the occupational risk to zoo workers of developing allergic reactions to wild animals.

“Plaintiffs [sic] do not assert that the articles stand for the proposition that allergic reactions may result without direct contact with the animals,” he said in partially denying a summary judgment motion. “It is also unclear if the animals in the articles are the same as the animals at issue here.”

“However,” he continued, “even though the evidence the Plaintiff presents is meager, it is enough to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Plaintiff’s allergic reaction was foreseeable from Conservation’s conduct.”

The animals which stayed at the Hampton Inn included lemurs, a spider monkey, a macaw and an alligator. Valdez-Castillo alleged she suffered allergy-related injuries including “severe, painful and debilitating skin lesions about her torso, extremities and face.”

“When you walked into the room, it was like being in a zoo,” she told the Miami Herald.

Dimitrouleas summarily dismissed a strict liability claim, finding the scientific articles did not address “the propensity of severe allergic reactions to the type of animals at issue. It must be severe allergic reactions, after all, that would make exposure to wild animals['] dander, feces, etc. 'dangerous' enough to warrant strict liability.”

Co-defendant Busch Entertainment Corp. (BEC), the owner of the theme park, also settled with Valdez-Castillo. Dimitrouleas found a triable issue of fact as to whether Conservation was its agent.

By Matthew Heller
3/16/09