Ladnier v. Hester
| Docket Number: | 2010-CA-01267-COA Linked Case(s): 2010-CA-01267-COA ; 2010-CT-01267-SCT ; 2010-CT-01267-SCT ; 2010-CT-01267-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 10-11-2011 Opinion Author: Barnes, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Personal injury - Negligence - Escape of livestock - Circumstantial evidence Judge(s) Concurring: Griffis, P.J., Ishee, Roberts, Carlton and Maxwell, JJ. Dissenting Author : Irving, P.J. Dissent Joined By : Lee, C.J., and Russell, 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: SUMMARY JUDGMENT GRANTED TO DEFENDANT Case Number: 2009-0128(2) |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Diana Ladnier and Lawrence Ladnier |
JAMES K. WETZEL, GARNER J. WETZEL |
|
|
| Appellee: | Joseph Hester | TRISTAN RUSSELL ARMER | ||
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 - Escape of livestock - Circumstantial evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | When returning home from her job, Diana Ladnier struck a horse – Diego – who weighed approximately 1,000 pounds, when it ran across the road. The horse was owned by Joseph Hester. Diana alleged that, due to the accident, she sustained serious personal injuries resulting in medical bills well over $69,000 and damage to her vehicle. Diana and her husband, Lawrence, filed a personal-injury and loss of consortium suit against Hester. Hester moved for summary judgment which the court granted. The Ladniers appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Negligence The Ladniers argue that there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Hester was negligent in using box wire “field fence” for a portion of the horses’ enclosure, instead of barbed wire. They claim whether the “field fence” was reasonable under the circumstances presents a fact question for a jury to decide. To support a claim of negligence, the plaintiff must submit proof showing 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, in itself, evidence of negligence on the part of the livestock owner. The plaintiff must prove actual negligence. Hester described the field fence at issue as “just basic horse and cattle box wire.” Importantly, the horses had not escaped their pasture in the two years prior to the incident, since they had been enclosed there, with the same fence at issue. Hester determined that in this instance, the horses had escaped by smashing down the box-wire field fence to approximately two feet from the ground, but there was no evidence as to why. The Ladniers’ arguments fail because they did not produce any evidence, such as testimony, exhibits, expert opinions, product warnings, or recognized industry standards, to rebut Hester’s evidence that the field fence was adequate for containing horses under the circumstances. The nonmoving party’s claim must be supported by more than a mere scintilla of colorable evidence; it must be evidence upon which a fair-minded jury could return a favorable verdict. The Ladniers also claim that Hester’s horses had a propensity for harm, which furthers their negligence claim. The evidence, however, shows the horses did not have a propensity for harm. Hester stated that none of his horses had “mean” propensities. He did admit that, in general, horses like to lean on fences and roam. Further, Hester claimed that Diego, while wanting to be the “boss of the pen,” was not high strung, but had a calm and “kind of curious” demeanor. Diego was also excellent with children, of whom Hester has five. Thus, the Ladniers fail to meet their burden of proof showing there is a genuine issue of material fact on the elements of negligence. Issue 2: Circumstantial evidence The Ladniers argue that negligence may be proven through circumstantial evidence and that a jury could conclude that Hester acted unreasonably in choosing field fence to enclose his horses. While the jury could infer negligence on the defendant’s part from other evidence besides that the animal escaped, such as that the fence was in poor condition, here, there is no such “other” evidence from which to infer negligence. According to the record, the horses were well fed, and the fence was in good condition. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
