Prevatt v. Carter
315 So.2d 503 (1975)
Rule of Law:
In a negligence action for damages caused by an animal on a public road, evidence of the animal owner's prior knowledge that their animals frequently escaped their pasture, combined with evidence of the condition of their fences, is admissible and sufficient for a jury to infer negligence.
Facts:
- On the night of November 12, 1972, Donald Prevatt was operating his motorcycle on a public road in the City of Fort Myers.
- Donald Prevatt collided with a black cow that was present on the public road.
- Some of Jack Carter's cattle were branded with a 'rafter J' brand, which was registered with the proper state agency.
- The cow involved in the accident had a 'rafter J' brand on its right hind quarter.
- Jack Carter had received complaints from neighbors and the sheriff's office that his cows were getting out of his pasture on prior occasions.
- Jack Carter's fence was in need of repair, and his cows had been seen going through the fence.
Procedural Posture:
- Donald Eugene Prevatt and M. Jacquline Prevatt (plaintiffs) sued Jack Carter and General Accident Fire and Life Assurance Corporation Ltd. (defendants) in a negligence action in a trial court.
- At the conclusion of the plaintiffs' case, the trial court granted the defendants' motion for a directed verdict.
- The trial court also excluded certain evidence offered by the plaintiffs, specifically testimony regarding the defendant's prior knowledge of his cows escaping and the condition of his fences.
- The plaintiffs appealed the entry of the directed verdict and the exclusion of evidence to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District (appellants).
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 trial court err by granting a directed verdict for the defendants and excluding evidence of the animal owner's prior knowledge that his cows were frequently out of their pasture and the dilapidated condition of his fences, which would allow a jury to infer negligence?
Opinions:
Majority - Boardman, J.
Yes, the trial court erred by granting a directed verdict for the defendants and excluding evidence of the animal owner's prior knowledge that his cows were frequently out of their pasture and the condition of his fences, as such evidence is admissible and could allow a jury to infer negligence. The court found that, when viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, there was sufficient evidence for a jury to reasonably infer that Jack Carter owned the cow, based on the registered 'rafter J' brand found on the animal and Carter's testimony about his cattle. While previous case law, such as Hughes v. Landers (citing Lee v. Hinson), established that the mere presence of an animal on a highway does not, by itself, raise an inference of negligence, the trial court misconstrued this principle. Evidence of the appellee's prior knowledge that his cows were escaping from the pasture, along with testimony regarding the poor condition of his fences and observations of cows passing through them, is highly relevant and material. This evidence is necessary for the appellants to meet their burden of proving negligence under the Warren Act. Such proof would allow the jury to infer negligence on the part of the appellee, thereby placing upon the appellee the burden of providing an appropriate explanation. The exclusion of this essential testimony prevented the appellants from having a 'full day in court'.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the evidentiary requirements for proving negligence in Florida when an animal causes injury on a public road, particularly under the Warren Act. It reinforces that while the mere presence of an animal at large does not create an inference of negligence, evidence of an owner's prior knowledge of the animal's escape tendencies and the disrepair of their containment facilities is crucial and admissible. The ruling ensures plaintiffs have a viable path to establish a prima facie case of negligence by allowing juries to consider circumstantial evidence of an owner's awareness and diligence, preventing premature dismissal of such cases through directed verdicts. This precedent aids in holding animal owners accountable for foreseeable risks arising from known containment failures.
