HOUSTON - The First Court of Appeals today reversed a judgment awarding more than $3.1 million to a man who struck a roaming cow while driving home.
According to the opinion, plaintiff Paul Brown struck a cow roaming on Highway 225 in Harris County while driving home after work during the early morning hours. He sued the alleged owners of the cow and Arraby Properties, the owner of the land on which the roaming cow was alleged to be pastured.
Brown appeared to suffer no pressing injury immediately after the crash, the opinion states. Months later, a neurologist diagnosed Brown with mild cognitive impairment.
Following a bench trial, the court held that Arraby was responsible for control of the cow, awarding Brown $3,174,817 in damages for physical pain and suffering, mental anguish, and loss of earning capacity.
On appeal, Arraby argued that there is insufficient evidence to support the legal conclusion that it owed Brown a duty because Arraby did not own or control the cow.
The First Court agreed, reversing the trial court’s judgment and rendering a judgment that Brown take nothing on his claims.
“Because there is legally insufficient evidence supporting the trial court’s finding that Arraby was responsible for control of the cow or that it knowingly permitted the cow to roam at large on a state highway, we hold the trial court erred in concluding Arraby owed a duty to Brown under Section 143.102 of the Texas Agriculture Code,” the opinion states.
Justice Gordon Goodman issued a dissenting opinion in the case, which states the trial court correctly found Arraby was negligent in knowingly permitting the cow to roam at large on a highway and correctly awarded damages to Brown.
“The evidence in this case shows that Arraby, as property owner, was responsible for the control of the cow on its property because it knowingly allowed the cow to be kept there and did not relinquish that control to anyone else, and the evidence shows Arraby knowingly permitted the cow to roam at large on a highway because Arraby made no effort to keep the cow fenced in,” the dissenting opinion states.
“Arraby had a duty to confine the cow by inspecting and maintaining the fences around the cow but did not do so and did not make arrangements for their inspection and maintenance.”
Appeals case No. 01-20-00610-CV