Way v. Bohannon
1985 Tenn. App. LEXIS 2611, 688 S.W.2d 89 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An owner of livestock is liable for damages caused by an escaped animal only if the plaintiff proves the owner knowingly or negligently permitted the escape. Evidence of prior escapes from different enclosures is insufficient to establish negligence for the incident in question.
Facts:
- A 1000-acre farm owned by the defendant was geographically divided by U.S. Highway 70N.
- In the fall of 1981, the defendant moved his cattle herd to a new pasture on the south side of the highway.
- On December 15, 1981, one of the defendant's cows broke through a fence enclosing this south-side pasture and wandered onto the highway.
- Michelle Randolph Way was a passenger in a car traveling on the highway that collided with the defendant's cow.
- Way was injured as a result of the collision.
- Although witnesses had seen cattle on the road on numerous prior occasions, there was no proof any cattle had ever escaped from the defendant's new south-side pasture before this incident.
Procedural Posture:
- Michelle Randolph Way sued the farm owner in a Tennessee trial court for negligence.
- At trial, after Way (plaintiff) presented her evidence, the defendant moved for a directed verdict.
- The trial court judge granted the defendant's motion for a directed verdict, dismissing the case before it went to the jury.
- Way, as the appellant, appealed the trial court's decision to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does evidence of prior instances of a defendant's cattle being on a public road constitute sufficient proof of negligence to create a jury question, when there is no proof that any animal had previously escaped from the specific, newly-used pasture from which the animal in the accident escaped?
Opinions:
Majority - Lewis, Judge
No. Evidence of prior escapes from different locations is not sufficient to prove negligence for the incident in question. The owner of escaping animals is liable only where they knowingly or negligently permit the escape. The plaintiff provided no evidence that the fence enclosing the new pasture was inadequate or that the defendant knew or should have known of a risk of escape from that specific pasture. Citing Wolaver v. Warren, the court held that negligence cannot be proven by evidence of negligent acts on other occasions. Because the plaintiff failed to produce material and substantial evidence of negligence—not even a 'spark or glimmer'—the case could not be submitted to a jury.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the specificity required to prove negligence in escaped-animal cases, establishing that a plaintiff cannot rely on a defendant's general reputation or past, unrelated incidents to prove negligence in a specific occurrence. The ruling reinforces the principle that negligence must be tied directly to the particular circumstances of the accident, requiring plaintiffs to present evidence about the specific enclosure and conditions that led to the animal's escape. This makes it more difficult for plaintiffs to succeed in such cases without direct evidence of a faulty fence or other specific negligent act by the owner at the time and place of the escape.
