I always thought that some of the more interesting / silly opinions are unpublished. Here is a gem of an opinion I found while doing legal research for one of my civil cases. It is cat-bite case, which generated three (!) separate opinions from a 3-justice panel.
The facts in Goldshine v. Lafferty are not complicated. Plaintiff and his wife were taking a leisurely walk on a street in Los Angeles. While they were walking down the block, a cat approached Plaintiff, and rubbed on his leg. Plaintiff petted the cat, picked it up, and discovered it had a tag with name “Tommy.” Plaintiff put Tommy down and continued to walk. The cat followed, meowing. But when Plaintiff bent over and petted the cat behind the ear, true to its feline nature, the cat suddenly bit his hand, causing what the opinion describes as “serious personal injuries.” Why a cat bite, which likely resulted in medical specials of no more than $100, generates a lawsuit against the cat’s owners, which was litigated through appeal, is beyond me. But putting practical considerations aside, Plaintiff did file a strict liability / negligence lawsuit, which the trial court rightly tossed on a motion for summary judgment.
The appellate court reverses in part and affirms in part, though the justices had trouble agreeing on the reasons for their decision. My guess is that the author of the lead opinion, Justice Mosk (not THAT Mosk) never had any pets. That’s the only reasonable explanation for his belief that the defendants might have a legal duty to keep their domestic cat tethered. I am thinking of mailing Justice Mosk a CD with a song by a Russian rock group Bravo (very popular in the 1980’s Soviet Union), which talks about common cat behavior. The only sensible opinion here is the dissent by Justice Grignon. She does recognize that it is common for a domestic cat to “roam wild and free” and that it is not uncommon for a cat to bite and scratch when a stranger picks it up, for whatever reason. Cats are kind of sensitive about their privacy and independence.
Come to think of it, the cat may actually have a claim against Plaintiff for assault, battery, and violation of its California constitutional right to privacy. I believe one of my former law school classmates has a legal practice devoted to pets and pet-related issues. I should call her and tell her about this case.
On a more serious note, I think this case should have been published and made a part of a law school textbook on Legal Ethics. I would make it a required reading when discussing certain claims that should not be brought on the grounds that the claim is just plain stupid.
Comments