Yazoo & M. v. R. R. v. Gordon
1939 Miss. LEXIS 65, 184 Miss. 885, 186 So. 631 (1939)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A possessor of a domestic animal is liable for harm it causes if they fail to exercise reasonable care to control it, and the harm is a foreseeable result of the animal's normal tendencies under particular circumstances, such as excitement or being in an unfamiliar environment. This duty to the public to prevent the animal from being at large is non-delegable.
Facts:
- A railroad company (appellant), as a connecting carrier, was transporting a carload of cattle from Texas to Tennessee.
- On March 7, 1938, the cattle were in the company's possession in Vicksburg and were unloaded into a cattle pen.
- The next morning, while the cattle were being reloaded into the train car, three of them escaped from the pen.
- One of the escaped steers became excited and ran through the railroad yard, onto a city street, and then onto a public highway.
- Several hours after escaping, the steer, without provocation, attacked and gored a child (appellee) on the public highway.
Procedural Posture:
- The child (appellee) sued the railroad company (appellant) in the trial court.
- The trial court granted a directed verdict for the appellee on the issue of liability.
- The jury was instructed only to determine the amount of damages, which it did.
- The railroad company, as appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment to this appellate court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a common carrier in possession of a domestic animal, such as a steer, liable for injuries caused by the animal after it escapes if the carrier was negligent in confining it or recapturing it, even if the carrier had no prior knowledge that the specific animal was abnormally dangerous?
Opinions:
Majority - Smith, O. J.
Yes, a common carrier is liable for injuries caused by an escaped domestic animal if it was negligent. Although a steer is a domestic animal, not 'ferae naturae' (wild), its possessor must exercise reasonable care to control it, commensurate with the animal's character. The court, citing the Restatement of Torts, reasoned that it is foreseeable that a domestic animal like a steer will become excited and dangerous when it escapes into unfamiliar surroundings. The nature of cattle is such that under excitement, they are likely to attack people in their way, and the company is charged with knowledge of this tendency. The court also held that one has a duty not to negligently permit an animal to be unattended on a public highway where it could foreseeably cause injury. Finally, the company's duty to the public to prevent the steer from being at large was non-delegable, meaning it could not escape liability by blaming an independent contractor for the escape.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the negligence standard for keepers of domestic animals, moving beyond the traditional 'one bite rule' which required knowledge of a specific animal's vicious propensity. It establishes that liability can arise from a failure to account for the foreseeable reactions of a typical animal of its class under stressful circumstances. The decision reinforces that what constitutes 'reasonable care' is context-dependent and accounts for the environment. Furthermore, the court's holding on the non-delegable duty is significant, preventing entities with public safety responsibilities from insulating themselves from liability by outsourcing their operations.
