Jividen v. Law
194 W. Va. 705, 461 S.E.2d 451, 1995 W. Va. LEXIS 134 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Where a domestic animal causes injury, an injured party may pursue a claim under strict liability if the animal had a dangerous propensity and the owner had prior knowledge, or under ordinary negligence if the owner failed to exercise reasonable care and the injury was reasonably foreseeable based on the animal's past behavior.
Facts:
- The William Penn Home Farm, a former personal care facility, closed in February 1991 and was owned by the William Penn Association; Paul Kovacs was the administrator and Barbara Kovacs was the business manager.
- On January 26, 1988, Robert and Joyce Law leased approximately 95 acres of the Home's property, agreeing to maintain five horses, furnish 500 bales of hay to the Home, and purchase the Home’s remaining cattle.
- Robert Law purchased all but three steers, which Delvious Jividen later purchased from the Home.
- On September 28, 1988, Delvious Jividen arrived at the Home to collect the three steers and met Robert and Joyce Law.
- Mrs. Kovacs’ six-month-old quarterhorse colt, Keno, was present in a corral adjacent to the barn, recovering from leg injuries sustained days earlier when it ran into a barbed wire fence; this was Keno's first extended time away from its mother or being corralled.
- The Laws decided to place the steers into the same corral as Keno for loading; Robert Law placed a halter on Keno, and Joyce Law led the colt a short distance away while the steers were herded into the corral.
- Just before loading the steers, Keno began pulling back on the rope held by Joyce Law, prompting both Robert Law and Delvious Jividen to approach Keno, with Delvious Jividen ultimately taking the rope to hold the colt.
- Keno kicked Delvious Jividen, causing a fractured skull and blunt chest injuries, from which he died a few days later.
Procedural Posture:
- Rex Jividen, as executor of Delvious Jividen, filed a wrongful death action against Robert and Joyce Law in the Circuit Court of Brooke County in April 1990.
- In September 1990, Rex Jividen filed a virtually identical complaint against Paul and Barbara Kovacs and the William Penn Home Farm in the Circuit Court of Brooke County.
- The Laws and the Kovacs filed third-party complaints against each other.
- The Appellees (Laws, Kovacs, and the Home) filed motions for summary judgment in the Circuit Court of Brooke County, arguing that Keno had never demonstrated vicious propensities and the attack was unforeseeable.
- The Circuit Court of Brooke County granted summary judgment to the Appellees, finding no evidence that Keno was dangerous or predisposed to violent behavior.
- Rex Jividen appealed the circuit court's order granting summary judgment to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the circuit court err in granting summary judgment to the animal owners by incorrectly applying the standards of care for injuries caused by a domestic animal and by improperly resolving genuine issues of material fact regarding the animal's propensities and the foreseeability of harm?
Opinions:
Majority - WORKMAN, Justice
No, the circuit court did not err in granting summary judgment because it correctly applied the established legal standards for injuries caused by domestic animals, and the Appellant failed to present sufficient evidence of a genuine issue of material fact regarding the animal's propensities or the foreseeability of the injury. The court clarified West Virginia's two-pronged approach for domestic animal injury cases: (1) strict liability, which applies if the animal had a dangerous or vicious propensity and the owner had actual or constructive knowledge of it (the scienter rule, aligning with Restatement (Second) of Torts § 509); and (2) ordinary negligence, which applies if the owner failed to exercise ordinary care to prevent the injury and the injury was reasonably and foreseeably anticipated, with emphasis on the animal's past behavior (aligning with Restatement (Second) of Torts § 518). The court determined that a horse is a domestic animal and found that descriptions of Keno as "rambunctious," "wild," or "frisky" were insufficient to establish a dangerous or vicious propensity for strict liability. Furthermore, given Keno's past behavior, which included being docile enough for a four-year-old child to ride, the injury was not reasonably foreseeable to support a negligence claim. The Appellant’s expert affidavit was properly disregarded as "wholly conclusory and devoid of reasoning," failing to explain the basis for its opinions. Finally, alleged inconsistencies in witness statements regarding the precise details of the accident were deemed not material, as they did not impact the elements required to prove Keno's viciousness or the foreseeability of the injury.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies and formalizes West Virginia's legal framework for liability concerning injuries caused by domestic animals, aligning it with the Restatement (Second) of Torts. By explicitly establishing a two-tiered system of strict liability (for known dangerous animals) and negligence (for foreseeable harm by otherwise non-vicious animals), it provides a clear standard for future litigation. The ruling also reinforces the stringency of summary judgment requirements, emphasizing that only genuinely material facts, directly relevant to the legal elements of a claim, can prevent a case from being dismissed. This decision places a higher burden on plaintiffs to present concrete evidence of an animal's prior dangerous behavior or highly foreseeable risk, rather than general rambunctiousness, to succeed in such actions.
