Livestock and Animals Collisions

COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE APPLIES IN CALIFORNIA TO MOST LIVESTOCK CASES:  You must prove the owner or care worker for the livestock new, or should have known, that it was reasonably foreseeable that the livestock would escape and cause injury but for their failure to exercise due care in the maintenance and repair of the fencing/property. While there are sections that do apply to livestock below, general negligence, and premises liability are usually the primary causes of action in these cases. 

NEGLIGENCE PER SE IN CASES WHERE THE ROAD IS FENCED ON BOTH SIDES:   Section 16904 does not entitle an owner to maintain animals with a lack of ordinary care. (Bartlett v. Galleppi Bros. (N.D. Cal. 1940) 33 F.Supp. 277, affirmed 120 F.2d 208.) In addition, section 16902 specifies: “A person that owns or controls the possession of any livestock shall not willfully or negligently permit any of the livestock to stray upon, or remain unaccompanied by a person in charge or control of the livestock upon, a public highway, if both sides of the highway are adjoined by property which is separated from the highway by a fence, wall, hedge, sidewalk, curb, lawn, or building.” (Food & Agr. Code, § 16902.) If you do not get the benefit of pleading strict liability, but the defendant has violated California Food and Agricultural Code section 16904, do not forget to use that violation to plead negligence per se. (see CACI 418 and Evid. Code, § 669.)

COMPARATIVE FAULT:  Typically insurance carriers will place the blame on you for striking livestock while driving. Child & Jackson has had several cases where black-colored horses and cows (Angus) are on the road late at night due to a failure to lock the gates or maintain fencing. In such cases, the defense attorneys usually argue that the driver should have seen them. Having attorneys that know how to retain experts that rebut these types of arguments is essential in helping you overcome these arguments, which are usually desperate attempts to get you to settle for far less than you deserve.

STRICT LIABILITY FOR TRESPASSING ON ANOTHER PERSON's PRIVATE PROPERTY:  Animals that wander away from their property become trespassers. Where they end up and who they harm determines what legal theories apply.

If animal trespasses onto private property and causes harm to the possessor of that property, strict liability applies. (Thomas v. Stenberg (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 654, 665.) The person in actual possession of the property is a proper party plaintiff in an action for trespass to real property. (Williams v. Goodwin (1974) 41 Cal.App.3d 496, 508.) This includes an owner or tenant in possession.

Strict liability would apply in a case where an animal trespassed onto a neighboring property and caused personal injury or property damage to the neighbor in possession. This includes motor vehicle versus domestic animal accidents that occur on private roadways. The key is to determine whether the roadway is public or private. Only an individual with a possessory right over the roadway will be entitled to assert a strict liability claim against the owner or keeper of the animal. If the injured individual does not have a possessory right over the property where the harm occurred, standard negligence principles apply.