Anderson v. McCarty

Summary

The court held that plaintiffs proved by a preponderance of the evidence that W.A. McCarty owned the cow that caused the automobile collision. It found that the trial court improperly disregarded corroborated testimony concerning McCarty's admission of ownership and held that the owner was presumed negligent under Louisiana's closed-range law. The court reversed and rendered judgment awarding Marshall Anderson $2,000 for personal injury and Louise Anderson $2,045.77 for vehicle damage.

Holdings

1. The trial court committed manifest error by rejecting without explanation the objectively corroborated testimony that McCarty admitted owning the cow.
2. The Andersons proved by a preponderance of the evidence that McCarty owned the cow involved in the accident.
3. When livestock causes damage in a collision with an automobile, the livestock owner is presumed negligent and may avoid liability only by proving that he took every precaution reasonably expected of a prudent person to prevent the livestock from escaping and roaming at large.
4. Louise Anderson could not recover loss-of-consortium damages because the claim was not specially pleaded.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court committed manifest error by rejecting, without explanation, objectively corroborated testimony that McCarty admitted ownership of the cow.
2. Whether the Andersons proved by a preponderance of the evidence that McCarty owned the cow involved in the collision.
3. Whether ownership of livestock that causes an automobile collision establishes a presumption of negligence that the owner must rebut by proving reasonable precautions against escape.
4. Whether Louise Anderson could recover loss-of-consortium damages when that claim was not specially pleaded.

Disposition

reversed