Smith v. Meyring Cattle Company, L.L.C.

302 Neb. 116 (2019) · Nebraska Supreme Court · January 25, 2019 · No. No. S-18-184

Summary

The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed a directed verdict against Harley Smith on his statutory strict-liability claim arising from injuries caused when a herding dog nipped at a cow, causing the cow to collide with Smith. The court held that Neb. Rev. Stat. § 54-601(1)(b)'s term "injuring" requires bodily hurt caused by acts directed toward the person or animal hurt, and does not encompass injury to a person through an animal instrumentality when the dog's conduct was directed only at livestock. The court distinguished statutory strict liability from negligence, which remained applicable to whether the ranch should have foreseen the risk.

Court
Nebraska Supreme Court
Writing for the Court
Freudenberg, J.; Heavican, C.J.; Miller-Lerman, J.; Cassel, J.; Stacy, J.; Funke, J.; Papik, J.
Jurisdiction
Nebraska
Decision date
January 25, 2019
Docket number
No. S-18-184
Procedural posture
Smith appealed the district court's partial directed verdict for Meyring on Smith's statutory strict liability claim under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 54-601(1). His negligence claims had been submitted to the jury, which returned a verdict for Meyring.
Standard of review
On review of a directed verdict, the court treats the motion as admitting the truth of all competent evidence favorable to the opposing party, resolves controverted facts in that party's favor, and gives that party the benefit of every reasonable inference. Statutory interpretation is reviewed de novo, with the appellate court reaching an independent conclusion.
Precedential value
published precedential opinion
Parties
Harley Smith v. Meyring Cattle Company, L.L.C.
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

strict liabilitystatutory interpretationmotion for directed verdictstandard of reviewpersonal injury

Practice areas

tortsanimal liabilitystatutory interpretationappellate procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Neb. Rev. Stat. § 54-601(1)(b) imposes strict liability when a herding dog nips at a cow, the cow moves or charges, and the cow indirectly injures a person.
  2. Whether the district court properly granted a directed verdict for Meyring on Smith's statutory strict liability claim.

Holdings

  1. "Injuring" under § 54-601(1)(b) is limited to bodily hurt caused by acts of the dog directed toward the person or animal that was hurt.
  2. A dog owner is not strictly liable under § 54-601(1)(b) when the dog merely performs normal herding behavior directed at a cow and the cow subsequently collides with and injures a person.
  3. The district court properly granted a directed verdict for Meyring on Smith's statutory strict liability claim.

Key quotations

Given that other words in § 54-601(1)(b)—“worrying” and “chasing” “any person or persons or any sheep or other domestic animals belonging to such person, firm, or corporation”—entail action directed toward the injured person or toward the injured animal owned by the damaged plaintiff, we hold that “injuring” must also be limited to bodily hurt caused by acts directed toward the person or animal hurt. (at 126)
Whether Meyring should have foreseen that Gunner would attempt to herd cattle in an enclosed space and thereby injure one of its employees was a question of negligence that was properly presented to the jury. (at 127)

Factual background

Harley Smith, a ranch employee, was moving cattle from a tub into an alley when Meyring's herding dog, Gunner, allegedly nipped at a cow's hooves through an opening in a gate. The cow charged, knocked Smith down, and trampled him, causing extensive injuries. The evidence showed that the dog was bred and trained to nip cattle to make them move, and that its conduct was normal herding behavior rather than behavior directed toward Smith. Smith brought negligence and statutory strict liability claims under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 54-601(1)(b).

Procedural history

Smith sued Meyring for negligence and statutory strict liability after a herding dog nipped at a cow, causing the cow to charge and injure him. The district court granted Meyring a directed verdict on the strict liability claim, while the jury found for Meyring on negligence. The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…