## Facts

- Ohmer Kunkel, Jr., a farmer, purchased a mature Limousin bull and told neighboring farmer Bernard Duren he bought it “a little cheaper” because it had “acted up” at the sale; the specific conduct was not clearly described.
- Kunkel kept the bull penned separately for two or three days after delivery until it “settled down.”
- Duren and Kunkel often exchanged labor for cattle work; on June 27, 1987, Duren helped on Kunkel’s farm with castrating and immunizing calves.
- After calves were separated, the bull remained in a corral with the calves; Kunkel directed Duren to move the bull out of the corral.
- Moving the bull required passing near an area where 15–20 calves had just been castrated, leaving fresh blood on the ground; Duren attempted to move the bull alone.
- When the bull reached a point about six feet from the blood, it turned and attacked, knocking Duren unconscious and causing serious permanent injuries.
- Expert testimony stated that Limousin bulls tend to be more aggressive than other breeds; bulls are generally dangerous; bulls may react aggressively in the presence of blood; and it is especially dangerous for one person to move a bull alone.
- A jury allocated fault 50% to each party and assessed $200,000 in damages, resulting in a $100,000 judgment for Duren.
- Kunkel sought a directed verdict and JNOV for lack of a submissible case; both were denied.

## Issues

1. Whether Duren presented sufficient evidence that this bull had a dangerous propensity abnormal to its class and that Kunkel knew or should have known of it, supporting strict liability for injuries caused by a domestic animal.
2. Whether Duren presented sufficient evidence of ordinary negligence in Kunkel’s direction and control of the cattle-handling task (including requiring Duren to move the bull alone near fresh blood), and whether the trial court erred in refusing to submit a negligence instruction.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Missouri reversed the judgment and remanded for a new trial.
- The court held Duren did not make a submissible case for strict liability because the evidence did not show an abnormal dangerous propensity of this individual bull known (or chargeable) to Kunkel.
- The court held Duren did make a submissible case of negligence based on evidence that Kunkel directed a foreseeably dangerous method of moving the bull without adequate assistance.
- The case was remanded for a new trial limited to the negligence theory.

## Legal Principles

- An owner is strictly liable for harm caused by a domestic animal only if the animal has a dangerous propensity abnormal to its class and the owner knew or should have known of that propensity.
- General assertions that “all bulls are dangerous,” generalized breed aggressiveness, or ambiguous prior behavior are insufficient, without animal-specific evidence of an abnormal dangerous propensity.
- A person in control of farm operations who directs another to perform a dangerous task may be liable in negligence for failing to use ordinary care, including failing to provide adequate assistance or a safer method when the danger is reasonably foreseeable.
- A trial court errs by refusing a requested negligence submission when evidence would allow a reasonable jury to find breach of ordinary care and causation.

## Conclusion

The court rejected strict liability because the proof did not establish that the particular bull had a known abnormal dangerous propensity, but required a new trial on negligence because evidence supported finding that Kunkel acted unreasonably in directing Duren to move the bull alone past fresh blood without adequate precautions.


Duren v. Kunkel, 814 S.W.2d 935 (Mo. 1991)