Summary Case Opinion Legal

John Anderson raises rattlesnakes for a medical lab for antivenin. The neighbors are claiming his rattlesnakes have bitten a few children in the last six months and they want him to do something about it. The area is well known for rattlesnakes and Mr. Anderson wants the neighbors to prove the rattlesnakes biting the children are his.
First the neighbors do not have to prove this to get an injunction for him to remove the snakes from his home.
There are several actions that can be brought against Mr.
Anderson, public and private nuisances are considered a mixed nuisance and would be used in this case. The town has an ordinance stating “keeping wildlife is prohibited” so the town can sue him for nuisance per se.
Buckley & Okrent,states the mixed nuisance is both public and private and the definitions for public or private nuisance is:

Public Nuisance: Activity by the tortfeasor
that unreasonably and substantially interferes
with the public’s use and enjoyment of legal
rights common to the public. (p 331 2004)


Private Nuisance: A tort that requires a
showing of special harm to you or your
property and allows the recovery of
damages for the harm as well as
an injunction. (p 321 2004)

Mr. Anderson’s rattlesnakes are dangerous and their venom is deadly. These snakes are obviously getting out of the house and have bitten children. This poses a threat not only to the individuals that live in the neighborhood but also anyone walking or visiting this neighborhood. I would be deathly afraid to be in this neighborhood. Therefore Mr. Anderson is posing a threat to both the public and private sector which make this case a mixed nuisance. Since the town has an ordinance Mr. Anderson can also be charged with nuisance per se which “speaks for itself”, Buckley & Okrent (p. 335, 2004).
The FDA also has regulations regarding antivenin and could be used also,

The Food and Drug Administration regulates
Antivenins as part of its oversight of biological
products. The agency requires certain criteria
to be met before these materials are sold,
including standards for purification, packaging
and potency. The FDA also regulates antivenin
labeling, ensuring that data on potential side
effects and other pertinent information are
available. The agency also periodically inspects
antivenin production facilities to ensure compliance
with regulations. (Henkel 2002)

It seems that Mr. Anderson is in for more than just the nuisance laws. I realize he is selling them to medical companies but does he have the approval of the Federal Government?
An immediate remedy for the nuisances can be an equitable remedy which a court can order Mr. Anderson to abate from the nuisance, or to cease immediately. The court could order an injunctive relief to remove the rattlesnakes from his home.
The court could also order a permanent injunction to keep Mr. Anderson from doing this again. This injunction is defined as:

…abatement orders instructing the defendant
to permanently stop doing the nuisance activity.
They are usually issued after a trial on the merits,
once the Trier-of-fact has concluded that a nuisance
exists. If the defendant fails to obey a permanent
injunction by continuing the nuisance, the court can
punish the defendant by holding him or her in contempt.
This punishment may involve monetary fines or even
imprisonment, Buckley & Okrent (p. 338, 2004).

Monetary damages could be ordered to the children’s parents that were bit by the snakes since they probably had to buy the antivenin from the hospital and nuisance cases will award money to victims who had economic burdens placed upon them by the nuisance.
Even with Mr. Anderson selling the antivenin to a medical supply companies there are federal regulations that have to be followed. The town has an ordinance against keeping wildlife in a home. I believe he will be ordered to remove the snakes and compensate the victims that have been hurt. There are no defenses for Mr. Anderson as this is a clear case of breaking the law and 100% evidence shows he is.

References

Buckley, W & Okrent, C (2004). Torts and Personal Injury: Third Edition. Canada: Delmar Learning (p. 321,331,335,338)
FDA/Office of Public Affairs, For Goodness Snakes!Treating and Preventing Venomous Bites, John Henkel, November 15, 2002, retrieved January 21, 2008 from http://www.fda.gov/Fdac/features/995_snakes.html
Kaplan University online Unit 7 Essay, case summary, retrieved online January 21, 2009.