Early on a September morning Ms. Gromer was driving along a country road when a vehicle driven by a Mr. Willeford collided with Gromer’s car. The reason for the collision was that a horse had escaped from a Mr. Matchett’s farm. Matchett was not the owner of the horse but, apparently, only boarding it for a Mr. Barker.
Gromer sued all concerned; Willeford, Matchett and Barker. Before trial, she settled with Willeford and Barker, leaving Matchett the only defendant at trial. Gromer made two claims against Matchett; either he had violated Missouri’s Stock Law (R.S. Mo. § 270.010: Domestic animals restrained from running at large) or he was responsible by general negligence for Gromer’s damages by allowing the horse to escape.
When horses, mules, asses, cattle, swine, sheep or goats escape from a property, Missouri’s Stock Law allows a jury to infer the animal had escaped because the animal owner had been negligent. Without the Stock Law, a person who has been injured by an escaped animal must prove it had escaped because the defendant had been negligent.
Matchett’s position at trial was Missouri’s Stock Law did not apply to him because he was not the horse’s owner; Barker was. At best, all he had been was in mere possession of the horse which, according to Matchett, was not enough to hold him legally responsible under the Stock Law. The trial judge did not agree with Matchett and the jury found him liable to Gromer for having violated Missouri’s Stock Law. Matchett appealed to the Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, in Springfield, Mo.
The Court of Appeals agreed with Matchett that the language of Missouri’s Stock Law only applied to animal owners; not mere possessors of animals. In making its ruling, the Court of Appeals fully quoted the Stock Law, emphasizing each time where the word “owner” appeared. Thereby effectively highlighting the absence of the word or phrase “possessor” or “person in possession” in the law.
“R.S. Mo. § 270.010: Domestic animals restrained from running at large. It shall be unlawful for the owner of any animal or animals of the species of horse, mule, ass, cattle, swine, sheep or goat, in this state, to permit the same to run at large outside the enclosure of the owner of such stock, and if any of the species of domestic animals aforesaid be found running at large, outside the enclosure of the owner, it shall be lawful for any person, and it is hereby made the duty of the sheriff or other officer having police powers, on his own view, or when notified by any other person that any of such stock is so running at large, to restrain the same forthwith, and such person or officer shall, within three days, give notice thereof to the owner, if known, in writing, stating therein the amount of compensation for feeding and keeping such animal or animals and damages claimed, and thereupon the owner shall pay the person, or officer, taking up such animal or animals a reasonable compensation for the taking up, keeping and feeding such animal, or animals, and shall also pay all persons damaged by reason of such animals running at large, the actual damages sustained by him or them; provided, that said owner shall not be responsible for any accident on a public road or highway if he establishes the fact that the said animal or animals were outside the enclosure through no fault or negligence of the owner. If the owner of such stock be not known, or if notified and fails to make compensation for the taking up, feeding and keeping of animals taken up under the provisions of this chapter, the same shall be deemed strays, and shall be dealt with in the same manner as required by law with respect to such property as strays, under the stray law. Any failure or refusal on the part of such officer to discharge the duties required of him by this section shall render him liable on his bond to any person damaged by such failure or refusal, which damages may be sued for and recovered in any court of competent jurisdiction.” (Underlying added.) R.S. Mo. § 277.010.
Given this statutory language the Court of Appeals ruled because Matchett was not the owner of the escaped horse, the trial judge had made a mistake when he told the jury it could give a verdict in favor of Gromer based on the Stock Law.
The appellate court ordered the case back for a new trial on Gromer’s remaining claim against Matchett that he had been generally negligent in allowing the horse to escape. In other words, requiring Gromer to prove to the new jury that Matchett had been negligent rather than allowing the jury to infer Matchett had been negligent from the lone fact the horse had escaped.
Finally, while the appellate court could see good reasons to include possessor of animals in the Stock Law, that was for the Missouri General Assembly to do, if it so decided, by amending the law.
Gregory M. Dennis is Legal Counsel for the Missouri and Kansas veterinary medical associations. He actively practices law in both Missouri and Kansas with the law firm of Kent T. Perry & Co., L.C., Overland Park, Kan.
