Ladnier v. Hester
| Docket Number: | 2010-CT-01267-SCT Linked Case(s): 2010-CA-01267-COA ; 2010-CA-01267-COA ; 2010-CT-01267-SCT ; 2010-CT-01267-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 08-16-2012 Opinion Author: Carlson, P.J. Holding: Reversed and Remanded |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Personal injury - Negligence - Stray livestock - Adequate enclosure Judge(s) Concurring: Waller, C.J., Dickinson, P.J., Randolph, Lamar, Kitchens and King, JJ. Dissenting Author : Pierce, J. Dissent Joined By : Chandler, J. Procedural History: Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 07-20-2010 Appealed from: George County Circuit Court Judge: Kathy King Jackson Disposition: Granted summary judgment to the Appellee. Case Number: 2009-0128(2) |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Diana Ladnier and Lawrence Ladnier |
GARNER JAMES WETZEL
JAMES KENNETH WETZEL |
|
|
| Appellee: | Joseph Hester | TRISTAN RUSSELL ARMER PATRICK COLLINS |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Personal injury - Negligence - Stray livestock - Adequate enclosure |
| Summary of the Facts: | Shortly after midnight, Diana Ladnier was driving her vehicle on River Road near Lucedale, returning home from her job as a correctional officer at a local facility, when three horses ran across the road. She struck the largest horse – Diego – which weighed approximately 1,000 pounds. Diana claims she was not speeding, and the road was unlit and dark. The horses were owned by Joseph Hester. Diana asserted that, because of the accident, she sustained serious personal injuries, resulting in medical bills in excess of $69,000. Diana also claimed damage to her vehicle. Diana and Lawrence Ladnier filed a personal-injury suit against Hester. Hester filed a motion for summary judgment, claiming that the Ladniers had not produced any evidence that he was negligent in securing his horses. The trial court agreed and granted summary judgment. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | To support a claim of negligence in a case involving stray livestock, the plaintiff must submit proof showing that the defendant failed to exercise reasonable care to keep the animal from being at large, and that such failure, if any, resulted in the escape of the animal from its enclosure, and that the animal owner’s failure to exercise such reasonable care proximately caused injury to the motorist who collided with the animal. The mere fact that livestock escapes from an enclosure and an accident occurs is not evidence of negligence on the part of the owner; the plaintiff must prove actual negligence. Both Hester and Ladnier are horse owners, but neither had been established as an expert; nor has Hester presented any other evidence of the adequacy of the fence beyond his own bare assertions. In addition, while Hester claimed that he daily fed the horses at 6:00 p.m., he did not state how much he fed the horses, or how much food a thousand pound horse required. The daily “visual inspections” of the fence that the Court of Appeals majority mentioned were characterized by Hester in his deposition as “a glance” at the fence. Thus, whether the enclosure was adequate as averred by Hester, or inadequate as averred by the Ladniers, is a jury question. The undisputed fact that, for two years, the three horses had been penned with field fence and had not escaped, is not proof that Hester was, or was not, negligent. The Ladniers have offered sufficient evidence to withstand Hester’s motion for summary judgment. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
