• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
University of Arkansas School of Law 
 
NatAgLaw@uark.edu• (479) 575-7646
An Agricultural Law Research Article
Approaching Liability with Animal Identification
by
Eric Pendergrass
July 2007
www.NationalAgLawCenter.org
 
1
Eric Pendergrass researched and wrote this article as a graduate assistant at the National Center forAgricultural Law while working toward his LL..M. in Agricultural Law at the University of Arkansas School ofLaw. His interest in agricultural law stems from a background with his family’s cattle operation in theArkansas River Valley. Mr. Pendergrass is currently a practicing attorney with Smith Maurras Cohen Reddand Horan PLC in Fort Smith, Arkansas.
2
M
ICHAEL
R
OBERTS
&
 
D
OUG
O’B
RIEN
,
 
A
NIMAL
I
DENTIFICATION
:
 
L
IABILITY
E
XPOSURE AND
R
ISK
M
ANAGEMENT
,
 
W.E
XTENSION
M
KTG
.
 
C
OMM
.
 
FS#6-04,
 
at 2 (Fall 2004),
available at 
http://lmic.info/memberspublic/animalID/fs06.pdf
.
3
 
Id.
4
 
Id 
.
5
Personal conversation with Michael Popp, University of Arkansas Assistant Professor, Department ofAgricultural Economics and Agribusiness (January 18, 2007).
6
 
See 
R
OBERTS
&
 
O’B
RIEN
 
supra 
note 2.
7
 
Id 
.
8
 
Id.
9
R
OBERTS
&
 
O’B
RIEN
 
supra 
note 2, at 3.
1
A National AgLaw Center Research Publication
Approaching Liability with Animal Identification
Eric Pendergrass
1
Attorney at Law
Introduction
Many livestock producers across the United States are skeptical of the National Animal IdentificationSystem (NAIS) because of the prospect of increased exposure to liability for their product. Livestockproducers have always been potentially liable for the livestock that they produce, and their recordshave always been subject to disclosure with a court order.
2
NAIS, however, could allow for additionaltransparency throughout the livestock production process, in addition to the new possibility ofimposing liability on all of the producers involved along the way.
3
While the concept and potentialramifications of producing livestock remain the same, there is now a concern about the possibility ofestablishing a causal connection between the damage caused by a defective animal and a producerwho is no longer the owner or in control of that animal.
4
This increased possibility for exposure to liability stands as a potential roadblock to the adoption of theNAIS as a voluntary program,
5
even though general public policy concerns may require a livestockproducer to take responsibility for the damages that result from his or her animals.
6
The overridingconcern is that, after NAIS is implemented, the records could be used to establish a cause of actionsuch as breach of warranty, strict liability, or negligence, and lead to the implication of more producersin lawsuits that seek to impose liability for defective or dangerous animals.
7
The ability to establishthe identity of those responsible is a key element to any of these causes of action.
8
Also, as the useof the NAIS becomes more common, those who chose not to use the system may be exposed toadditional liability.
9
Thus, it is important to look at liability under the NAIS with varying causes ofaction in mind when discussing the producers’ concerns about increased liability stemming frompossible causal connections established by these records.
Background
In 2003, after the discovery that a cow in Washington State had contracted Bovine SpongiformEncephalitis (BSE), an affliction commonly known as “mad cow” disease, the USDA announced that it
 
10
N
ATIONAL
A
GRICULTURAL
L
AW
C
ENTER
, A
NIMAL
I
DENTIFICATION
:
 
A
N
O
VERVIEW
, available at 
http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org/assets/overviews/animalid.html
.
11
USDA-APHIS, (NAIS)
 
N
ATIONAL
A
NIMAL
I
DENTIFICATION
S
YSTEM
:
 
A
 
D
RAFT
U
SERS
G
UIDE AND
A
DDITIONAL
I
NFORMATION
3 (2006),
available at 
http://www.ag.state.co.us/animals/COAnimalID/NAISUserGuideDraftNov2006.pdf
.
12 
 
See 
 
id.
13
 
Id.
at 3-4.
14
 
Id.
at 5.
15
 
Id.
at 5-6.
16
 
Id.
at 6.
17
 
Id.
18
 
Id.
at 6.
19
 
Id.
20
B
LACK
’
S
L
AW
D
ICTIONARY
1619
 
(8
th
ed. 2004).
21
 
Id.
22
 
Id.
2
was moving forward with a nationwide animal identification plan.
10
That plan manifested itself as theNAIS, which strives for a 48-hour trace back to an animal’s premises of origin in the event of adisease outbreak or animal health emergency.
11
Originally, the system was to become mandatoryfollowing an implementation period; however, the USDA announced in late 2006 that NAIS wouldremain a voluntary program after considerable opposition by the livestock industry.
12
Designed with safety of the food supply and heard health in mind, the system includes premisesregistration, animal identification, and animal tracking which will add transparency to the livestockproduction process.
13
Premises registration is the process of identifying the locations where livestockare held or accumulated, such a farm or stockyard, and recording the contact information of the owneror person responsible for the care of those animals.
14
The animal identification component involvesestablishing a mechanism to identify the livestock either on a group or individual basis, depending onthe species.
15
Animals that stay together as groups during their lifetime, such as chickens or hogs,are to be identified on a group basis, while livestock with more individualized production processes,such as cattle, are identified on an individual basis.
16
Once the premises registration and animalidentification components are functional, they will be combined to provide an animal tracking systemwhich reports animal movements and shows where they have been and the other animals with whichthey have come into contact.
17
Each of these components will involve records that could potentiallybe used to implicate livestock producers and establish liability in a manner that could not be doneotherwise.
Warranties Theory
The livestock industry is no stranger when it comes to addressing issues relating to warranties andthe sale of livestock; a group of states has already enacted statutory provisions to limit the applicationof warranties within the livestock industry. The warranties of merchantability and fitness for aparticular purpose, whether implied or express, could apply to producers in the livestock industrybecause those warranties could serve as a basis for attaching liability after a sale if the animals do notmeet certain standards.
18
This warranty theory is important with respect to the NAIS becauseproducers along the production chain might try to join earlier owners in the process in an attempt toestablish that someone else was responsible for the defective condition of the animals.
19
 A warranty of merchantability is defined as a guarantee that an item is fit for the ordinary purpose forwhich it is used.
20
Similarly, a warranty of fitness for a particular purpose imposes a guarantee that anitem is fit for its intended use when the buyer relies upon the seller’s knowledge of the goods and theseller knows of the buyers intended use.
21
In the context of the Uniform Commercial Code (U.C.C.),both of these warranties can be expressed in a written contract or implied when the sale of thelivestock occurs between merchants.
22
While some jurisdictions have reached opposing conclusions,
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...