The process of purchasing a bull and other livestock can also lead to liability for the owner of the animal. In Duren v. Kunkel, Plaintiff purchased a bull at a sale from Defendant. 814 S.W.2d 935, 936 (Mo. 1991). After purchasing the bull, Defendant instructed Plaintiff to move the bull out of the corral. Id. Plaintiff then proceeded attempting to move the bull out of the corral. Id. However, when doing so, Plaintiff drove the bull out and at that point, the bull turned and attacked Plaintiff. Id. Plaintiff was then knocked unconscious and sustained substantial and permanent injuries. Id. Plaintiff claimed that he was an invitee of Defendant. Id. The court held this to be correct and Defendant’s liability is measured by its duty to an invitee. Id. Furthermore, the court describes the duty owed to invitees: “The duty owed to invitees includes the duty to eliminate or warn of dangerous conditions of which the defendant knows or in the exercises of reasonable care should have known.” Id. Additionally, the court states that, “one who owns or possesses a bull may be found to have actual or constructive knowledge of the animal’s normally dangerous propensities and be required to take reasonable steps to prevent foreseeable harm to invitees and employees. Id. at 939. Defendant argued that there is no duty owed to warn Plaintiff of that which he already knows or should know. Id. However, the Court held that, “[w]hether Plaintiff knew of the danger or by using ordinary care could have known of the danger is an issue that, under comparative fault, does not defeat Plaintiff’s claim, but leaves the assessment of fault to the jury.” Id.
To conclude, when a bull owner fails to use a reasonable degree of care for invitees, they can be held liable for negligence and may not be immune from liability, even if their bulls are considered to be dangerous and the purchaser has extensive knowledge and experience in purchasing bulls.