The Cassington family had operated a dairy farm in Medville, a town 30 miles west of Denver, for three generations. The farm operations had remained essentially unchanged for generations and the daily routine included herding the cows across a now busy state road twice each day-once in the morning (when the cows were put out to pasture across the street from the barn) and once at precisely 4:00 p.m. (when they were brought back to the barn for milking). Because the routine was followed so exactly, the animals had learned to cross with very little supervision. In May, a neighboring farm, Primrose Path Acres, two miles down the road, closed down and sold all its land to a developer. As a farewell gift to old friends, the family gave the Cassingtons their prize heifer “Ol’ Betsy.” Primrose Path had the same layout of farm buildings and pasture on opposite sides of the same state road. They had also followed the same practice of crossing the cows, essentially by just opening the gates and letting the animals cross.
One day when Farmer Cassington had opened his gates to let the herd cross, Ol’ Betsy casually walked down the road towards Primrose Path Acres. Cassington did not notice because he had gone back into the barn to open stalls. By the time he realized Ol’ Betsy was gone, she had reached the site of her former barn, now converted into the lovely suburban home of Muffy and Eliot Borbes, lawyers who commuted to Denver each day. The converted barn was separated from the road by the land and house of a neighbor. Betsy caused substantial damage trying to get in. In an action against Cassington for the damage Ol’ Betsy caused, the likely outcome is:
A. Cassington will prevail, because there is no liability for the damage caused by livestock who wander off as they are being driven lawfully on a highway.
B. Cassington will prevail unless he was negligent in not remaining with the cows as they crossed the road.
C. The Borbes’ will prevail, because the destruction caused by Betsy proves that she had dangerous propensities.
D. The Borbes’ will prevail, because Cassington is strictly liable for any damage done by his trespassing cows.
{ 11 comments… read them below or add one }
Answer D is correct. The possessor of livestock is strictly liable for damage done by the animal’s trespass. One exception to this rule, adopted in some jurisdictions, is for the trespass of animals being lawfully driven on the highway. However, this is not the majority rule and is not applicable in this case, because Ol’ Betsy’s trespass was not incidental to her being driven on the road. She had wandered unattended for two miles and then onto land not adjacent to the highway. Therefore, A is incorrect.
Answer B is incorrect. Cassington may be negligent in his method of driving his cattle, but there is some evidence that his conduct was reasonable. Moreover, it is not necessary to reach this question, because he will be strictly liable for the damage done by his trespassing livestock. The possessor of livestock is strictly liable for damage done by the animal’s trespass.
Answer C is incorrect. The possessor of livestock is strictly liable for damage done by the animal’s trespass. The question of an animal’s dangerous propensity to cause harm only arises when a domesticated animal causes harm from a behavior which is not ordinarily characteristic for that type of animal. In these cases it must be shown that a defendant knew or had reason to know of the animal’s propensity. A cow is not a domesticated animal.
D.
D; trespassing cattle
B.
D.
B. I think C is wrong, because the Cow is not a dangerous pet, and his attempt to get into the house doesn’t prove he’s dangerous; he was just following his routine. D is wrong because I think strict liability only refers to dangerous or wild animals. Are cows considered to be wild animals under the law? And A just sounds like an answer someone would make up on an essay question if they didn’t know the answer:-)
Answer D
answer D. for trespassing animals, there is strict liability for foreseeable harm caused by the animal .
Answer – B
D. Trespass is treated differently than other harms caused by domesticated animals. Animals cause a lot of damage in trespass, so owners are liable regardless of their knowledge that an animal may wander.
For other harms involving domesticated animals, owners are only strictly liable if they knew of an animal’s particular trait or propensity to act and failed to mitigate the harm caused by the trait/propensity.
B.