Pet duck attack prompts $275,000 lawsuit

Pet duck attack: A retired nurse is seeking up to $275,000, including about $25,000 for medical expenses, after another woman's pet duck ambushed her, she says.

Adele Starr/Reuters/Pool
After four weeks as a tourist attraction, a mallard duck (with her 11 ducklings) got moved from the US Treasury Building in Washington to Rock Creek Park, May 5, 2005.

A woman visiting her mother in Oregon is suing her neighbor, seeking $275,000 for pain, suffering and other damages she says were inflicted when a pet duck ambushed her for no apparent reason.

Cynthia Ruddell, 62, of Washougal, Washington, was on her mother's property in Estacada, Oregon, about 25 miles southeast of Portland, when a neighbor's duck attacked her without provocation, according to the suit filed in Oregon state court last Friday.

In her attempt to run away from the agitated waterfowl, Ruddell fell to the ground, breaking her right wrist and spraining an elbow and shoulder, the suit claims. The incident occurred in May of 2012.

The complaint accuses the bird's owner, Lolita Rose, of failing to maintain control of her pet or "to warn or otherwise inform neighbors of her duck's dangerous propensity in attacking individuals."

Ruddell, a retired nurse, is seeking up to $275,000 in damages, including roughly $25,000 for medical expenses, with the remainder being for pain, suffering and the toll her injuries have taken on her daily life.

Ruddell's lawyer, Gregory Price, said it was his understanding that Rose had her duck killed after the incident.

Rose could not be reached for comment on the case.

Price said he expects the damages will ultimately be paid by Rose's insurance policy, but filing a lawsuit was necessary as a precaution because of continuing medical bills from a second surgery on his client's wrist and a two-year statute of limitations on such claims.

Along with the lingering effects of the attack, the legal case has brought Ruddell a measure of unwanted attention, her attorney said.

"I've learned a lesson," he said. "In any future lawsuit I'll talk about my client being attacked by a domestic animal. Not by a duck."

(Reporting by Jonathan Kaminsky; Editing by Steve Gorman, Eric Walsh and Gunna Dickson)

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.