Back in February 2004, the guests at the Hampton Inn Miami Airport West included two baby lemurs, a spider monkey, a macaw and an alligator. Now a federal judge may be about to decide whether those animals were a “dangerous condition” that foreseeably caused a former motel maid to suffer an allergic reaction.

Under Florida law, the “owner and keeper” of a wild animal is strictly liable for injuries to persons that are directly caused by the animal. But Arlin Valdez-Castillo's case raises an issue of first impression -– whether an owner is liable for an allergic reaction to a wild animal.

The lemurs and other animals were part of an educational traveling zoo based in Paso Robles, Calif., and stayed at the Hampton Inn for eight days while on a promotional tour for the Busch Gardens Africa safari theme park.

According to Valdez-Castillo, she was exposed to “dander, urine, feces, excrement and odor” while cleaning the animals' rooms. As a result, she suffered injuries including “severe, painful and debilitating skin lesions about her torso, extremities and face.”

Her federal complaint pleads claims for both strict liability and negligence, alleging that Busch Entertainment Corp. (BEC) and the operator of the traveling zoo, Conservation Ambassadors, “created and/or allowed a dangerous condition and/or a concealed peril to exist in their zoo animals causing injury to the Plaintiff.”

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

But in a motion for summary judgment, Conservation Ambassadors stresses that her injuries were not “caused by actual physical contact with the animals.” To hold Conservation Ambassadors liable, the motion warns,

would open up the floodgates of litigation. Based on his or her status as an animal owner, every person who owns an animal would owe a duty to every other person who was exposed to the dander, feces, and excrement of the animals, but who did not come into contact with said animals.

Busch has also moved for summary judgment, arguing that “the allergic reaction was due to Plaintiff's own immune system, which is something over which BEC lacks any control.”

Valdez-Castillo testified in her deposition that the animals were never in the rooms when she cleaned them. She also said she had visited several zoos without suffering an allergic reaction and that she had owned dogs and kittens.

In the latest twist in the case, defense lawyers have moved for dismissal of the case to sanction plaintiff's counsel John P. Hess for providing the Herald with Conservation Ambassadors' confidential manual for traveling with animals.

Among other things, the manual tells employees to put the “Do Not Disturb” sign on the door knob when leaving an animal unattended in a hotel room, “animal-proof” the bathroom if using it as a holding area and, in the case of traveling penguins,

Have PR ask the hotel staff to cool the room ahead of time. A room near the ice machine is helpful.

By Matthew Heller
10/7/08