Here is a re-typed copy of the Judge's "Risk assessment" on Kodo.
 
Pursuant to the language of this 1997 Compendium the first item that must be
consideredis THE SPECIES of the animal doing the biting.  Unfortunately, the
perioid of virus shedding for the bat strain rabies is unknown for ferrets.
This is crucial since the bat strain virus is the predominent rabies virus
in Michigan.  Because of this, isolation and observation of the ferret to
see if it shows signs of being sick won't guarantee that Mr. Ostlund didn't
get rabies and die.
 
The second consideration is THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE BITE.  The testimony of
Mr. Ostlund was that the bite was an accident and not an attack.  Therefore,
it did not contain any indiciation of a raabid animal striking out at a
possible source of its pain.  However, the tooth did break the skin on Mr.
Ostlund's hand and drew blood so if the ferret had the rabies virus in it's
saliva, it could have passed it on to Mr. Ostlund.
 
The third consideration is the EPIDEMIOLOGY OF RABIES IN THE AREA.  There
was an abundance of testimony that rabies has been found in Michigan.  For
example, plaintiff's Exhibit K which is a chart entitled "Rabies Positive
Animals, 1996," indicates that 29 bats were rabid in Michigan, Four of which
were found in counties contiguous with Saginaw where the ferret has lived
for at least the past nine months.  This establishes an epidemiology of
rabies in Michigan which exposes the ferret to the bat strain virus.
 
The fourth consideration is the BITING ANIMALS HISTORY.  In the present case
there was no evidence that the ferret had ever bitten anyone before.  The
owners testified that in the nine months they had him, he bit no one.
Because we had a hearing in this case, this ferret's history was established
by testimony under oath.  Ordinarily, the animal control agent wouldn't have
this information unless there was a previous bite report.  Therefore, they
would have to depend on the unsworn statement of the owners for this
information.  Therefore, it would not be reasonable to require animal
control agencies to make such an analysis on every case of a biting and then
use it to reduce the potential for exposure to rabies.
 
The fifth consideration is the HEALTH STATUS OF THE BITING ANIMAL.  In the
present case, the health of the ferret who has been isolated since the
biting incident, May 2, 1997, is normal.  Although this is significant, it
is not dispositive because the shedding period of the bat rabies virus in
ferrets is unknown.
 
The sixth consideration is the biting animal's POTENTIAL FOR EXPOSURE TO
RABIES.  As previously mentioned, Michigan has bats and Exhibit K shows that
of the 29 bats found with rabies in 1996, four were from counties touching
Saginaw County.  Although the testimony of the owners was that the nine
months that they had the ferret he was kept in the house and only had
contact with their other personal ferrets, they were not able to say that he
was under observation or seclusion 24 hours a day.
 
Although it is unlikely a rabid bat could have gotten into the premises,
contacted the ferret, and left without being discovered, it is possible.
More likely, however, is the possibility that one of the other approximately
26 ferrets living in the home, previously contracted bat raabies and passed
it on to this ferret.  Most of these ferrets came to this home, which was a
rescue shelter called Rascal's Hideout, from unknown living environments.
 
In addition there was an unvaccinated dog on the premises for approximately
24 hours.  Although it was kept outside for most of the day that it was
there, it was also in the house for a short period of time and it didn't get
along with the ferrets.  Dogs can carry the bat strain rabies.
 
Granted that the chances of this ferret being susceptible to rabies after
its immunization is reduced by 90%.  However, that still leaves 10%
 
In addition to this, the ferret could have been exposed to rabies during the
two months before he came to live with the plaintiffs.  There was no
evidence regarding where, with whom, or under what circumstances the ferret
lived before he came to the plaintiffs.  He could have contacted the virus
then, which would have been before his immunization.  Although there was
testimony by a plaintiff expert that if the verret had contacted the virus
in the first two months of his life, he would be dead by now, this
conflicted with the testimony of the defendant's experts that we just don't
know enough yet about ferrets and the bat strain of rabies to reach that
conclusion.  In addition, the plaintiffs' experts didn't support their
conclusion with sufficient scientific theory or logic.
 
Taking all this into consideration, it was the opinion of both Dr. Hall and
Dr. Stobierski that there was a small but real but small possibility that
this ferret has rabies.
 
Mr. Gani, the plaintiffs' lawyer, argued that he shouldn't have to prove a
negative, However, in order to overcome the testimony of the defendants'
experts, he must establish the there in't a REALISTIC POSSIBILITY that the
ferret has the bat strain virus.
 
 
There's yet more insanity in this document, but I think what's above should
show everyone the way our court system makes it's stupid decisions.
 
Robert Jacobs
[Posted in FML issue 1956]