Wandering cows' owner not liable for wreck on highway

Listen to this article

A woman who was injured when her car collided with cows on a Marion County highway could not sue their owner for strict liability under a state law because the cows were not trespassing, the Court of Appeals ruled.
The decision hinged on two novel issues: Whether S.C. Code Ann. Sect. 47-7-130 imposed a strict liability standard on livestock owners for personal injury, and whether that standard would extend to claims against owners of livestock found on a public roadway.
The court said the statute created strict liability for “all damages” and that the standard didn’t apply to owners whose livestock wasn’t trespassing. However, the court left the door open for plaintiffs to file negligence claims on the theory that livestock owners have a duty to keep their animals from straying onto public roads.
For plaintiff Pearl Williams, however, the only option to consider was whether to appeal to the state Supreme Court, said her lawyer, Michael T. Miller of Florence.
Williams had conceded her negligence claim on summary judgment in a Marion County circuit court. Whether she could rely on her strict liability claim is a unique issue that remains largely unresolved, Miller said.
“As far as the statute that we relied on, there were no cases, and I still don’t think this has been resolved at this point, but I think they certainly have clarified a little bit what the statute applies to,” he said.
The defendant’s lawyers, Heath Atkinson of Florence and Hawthorne Barrett of Columbia, did not return phone calls seeking comment prior to deadline.
Miller said the accident occurred when his client was driving at the speed limit on U.S. Highway 76 early on a foggy morning.
“The road dips a little bit and then goes around a little bit of turn. She came around the turn and there was a little bit of fog, and she just came to a point where she saw a break in the fog and just saw this mass, all these cows,” Miller said.
Williams suffered “extensive injuries” to her knee, shoulder, arm, hand and hip. Her medical costs were about $100,000, Miller said.
The Oct. 20 decision came in Williams v. Smalls (Lawyers Weekly No. 011-128-10, 5 pp.). Judge Paula H. Thomas wrote the opinion, and Chief Judge John C. few and Judge Daniel F. Pieper concurred.

Analysis
Section 47-7-130 statute says, in part, that owners of “trespassing stock” are liable for “all damages sustained” when the animals are on the lands of “any other person than the owner or manager of such animals.”
That “plain language,” Judge Thomas wrote, created “strict liability for all damages.” But the statute’s title referred to the owners of “trespassing” stock, which meant the court had to look beyond the statute’s language to trespass law.
“In the general sense, a trespass is an intentional tort in which a trespasser invades a plaintiff’s interest in the exclusive possession of his real property,” Thomas wrote for the court. “Accordingly, the language of Sect. 47-7-130 is not as explicit in regards to when strict liability is appropriate as it is about what damages an owner shall be strictly liable for.”
Citing cases from several other jurisdictions, the court said common law traditionally hasn’t imposed a strict duty on livestock owners to keep their animals from wandering onto public roads.
In this case, Thomas wrote, the defendant’s cows were not on any private property owned by Williams, and Williams had “neither the right of exclusive possession nor the right to expel other persons or property from the highway.”
“Consequently, the historic justifications for the imposition of strict liability upon the owner of stock are not at stake here,” Thomas wrote. “Williams is entitled to no expectation that the roadways will be free and clear of all hazards, simply those hazards interposed by the unreasonable conduct of others.”
Miller said the decision placed too much weight on the statute’s title.
“They’re saying ‘trespassing’ is in the title and trespassing is only on private property, a public highway isn’t private property and, therefore, you can’t trespass on the highways,” Miller said.
“My argument was simply that the use of the term ‘trespassing’ in the title of the provision was simply meant as a way of describing the livestock as not on their owners’ land, not necessarily used as cause-of-action terminology,” he said.
OPINION BRIEF

Case name: Williams v. Smalls (Lawyers Weekly No. 011-128-10, 5 pp.)
Court: S.C. Court of Appeals
Judge: Judge Paula H. Thomas wrote the opinion; Chief Judge John C. Few and Judge Daniel F. Pieper concurred.
Attorneys: For plaintiff/appellant: Michael T. Miller of Florence. For defendant/respondent: Hawthorne Barrett of Columbia and Heath Atkinson of Florence.
Issue: Does S.C. Code Ann. Sect. 47-7-130 impose a strict liability standard on the owners of livestock for personal injury, and if so, does the standard extend to personal injury occasioned when livestock is found at large upon a public roadway?
Holding: The court ruled that the statute created strict liability for “all damages” but that the standard didn’t extend to a personal injury claim against owners of livestock found on a public roadway because the statute’s title specifically addressed “trespassing stock” and the cows at issue weren’t trespassing because they were on a public roadway. The court left the door open for personal injury plaintiffs to file negligence claims on the theory that livestock owners have a duty to keep their animals from straying onto public roads.
Potential impact: The ruling removes a strict liability cause of action from personal injury plaintiffs suing under Sect. 47-7-130.