When a Cow’s Journey Turns into a Legal Showdown, Liability for Escaped Cows in Louisiana

Whether it’s a high-speed collision on I-10 or a chaotic scene in a St. Gabriel neighborhood, escaped livestock poses a deadly risk to Louisiana motorists. Under La. C.C. Art. 2321, the owner of a cow or horse is not ‘strictly liable’ like a dog owner, but they face a rigorous negligence standard when their animals roam free.

Open Range vs. Closed Range: The Geography of Liability

In Louisiana, your ability to recover damages depends on where the accident happened.

• Closed Range: Most of Louisiana consists of ‘closed range’ areas, where owners have an absolute duty to keep livestock fenced in. If an animal escapes, the owner must prove they were not negligent in maintaining their fences.
• Open Range: In certain rural patches, livestock are legally allowed to roam. In these areas, the burden shifts to the driver to prove the owner was ‘grossly negligent’—a much higher bar to clear.

Determining liability for escaped cattle requires a deep understanding of local parish ordinances. See our Louisiana Livestock & Horse Liability Guide for more on these standards. While cows are a frequent issue, horse collisions on highways involve similar disputes regarding fencing and DOTD responsibility. Read about the Madison Parish horse accident ruling for more.

In the case of Kasem v. Williams, the court focused on whether the owners took ‘reasonable steps’ to recapture the cow after a storm. This shows that even an ‘Act of God’ (like a hurricane or storm) does not permanently shield an owner from liability if they fail to act once the danger passes.

What happens when a cow crosses a road? Although that might sound like the start of a joke, that is the situation Zaine Kasem found herself in after being run over by a cow that escaped from a herd owned by Joyce B. Williams and H.R. Williams Cattle Company (“HRW”). 

There had been a heavy rainstorm. One of HRW’s employees inspected the pasture and fence, but he did not see any damage caused by the storm. Nonetheless, a cow escaped from the herd through a damaged fence and entered Kasem’s front yard in St. Gabriel, Louisiana. Kasem described the scene as a “circus” with many people running around trying to capture the cow. Finally, she went outside to see what was happening, and the cow ran into her, knocked her into the bed of a truck, and caused her to suffer injuries to her eye, nose, back, and neck, requiring medical treatment and pain and suffering.

Kasem sued Williams and HRW, claiming they breached the duty under La. C.C. art. 2321 to restrain their cattle and prevent them from entering other properties, injuring others, or otherwise causing damage. Williams and HRW filed a motion for summary judgment in response to the lawsuit.

In the motion, they admitted to owning the cow and that it escaped from the pasture. However, they denied the cow struck or injured Kasem. They also argued Kasem had no evidence they failed to exercise reasonable care. Before this incident, they claimed there had never been any situations with cattle escaping and causing damage, although there had been a few prior examples of cows escaping. The trial court granted Williams and HRW’s motion and dismissed Kasem’s lawsuit. Unhappy with the ruling, Kasem appealed. 

Summary judgment is appropriate where there are no genuine issues of material fact. La. C.C.P. art. 966. In determining whether an owner can be held liable for injuries caused by an animal that is not a dog, the plaintiff must show the owner knew or should have known of the danger posed by the animal and the owner could have taken reasonable steps to prevent injury but did not do so. Here, if Williams and HRW could demonstrate that Kasem provided insufficient evidence supporting her claim, it was appropriate for the trial court to grant their summary judgment motion. 

At the appellate court, Williams and HRW claimed Kasem did not provide evidence to suggest they did not act reasonably in their efforts to reclaim the escaped cow. The appellate court pointed to factual issues related to whether the defendants acted reasonably in their recapture efforts, such as whether alternative recapture methods might not have been as stressful for the cow. Furthermore, Williams and HRW admitted that cows could become unpredictable and skittish if separated from their herd. 

Even if the cow’s escape resulted from an act of God (here, a rainstorm), there was still a factual dispute about whether Williams and HRW acted reasonably to reclaim the escaped cow once the storm was over. Therefore, the appellate court reversed the trial court’s grant of the summary judgment because there were factual disputes. 

The case of Zaine Kasem and the escaped cow serves as a reminder that even seemingly humorous situations can result in serious legal battles. While it may initially sound like a joke, Kasem’s injuries were no laughing matter. The appellate court’s decision to reverse the summary judgment highlights the importance of factual disputes and the need for evidence to support claims in animal-related injury cases. 

If you find yourself injured by an animal, seeking the guidance of a skilled attorney is crucial in understanding your legal options and building a strong case based on the required evidence. With their expertise, you can navigate the complexities of such cases and seek the compensation you deserve.

The Statutory List: Is Your Road a “Stock Law Highway”?

Under La. R.S. 3:2803, the Louisiana legislature has designated a specific list of “Stock Law Highways” where owners are strictly prohibited from allowing livestock to roam. These include major routes like US 61, US 90, US 190, and LA 1.

If your accident occurred on one of these enumerated highways, the law is heavily on your side. In these zones, the owner is not just “maybe” liable; they are saddled with a presumption of negligence. To win, your attorney simply needs to prove the animal was present on the roadway—the burden then shifts to the owner to prove they were 100% free from fault.

The “Slightest Degree of Negligence” Standard

Louisiana courts have established a unique and powerful burden of proof for victims of escaped livestock. In “stock law” areas, a livestock owner must exculpate themselves from “even the slightest degree of negligence.” To successfully defend a claim, the owner must provide evidence of three specific things:

1. That they took all reasonably prudent measures to secure the animal (e.g., modern fencing and locked gates).
2. Exactly when, where, and how the animal escaped.
3. That the escape happened through no fault of their own (such as a third party cutting a fence or a sudden “Act of God”).

If the owner cannot explain exactly how the cow or horse got out, the law presumes they were negligent in their maintenance, making them liable for your damages.

Identifying the Owner: Brands, Tags, and Circumstantial Evidence

A common defense in escaped livestock cases is the “Not My Cow” defense. If an animal is killed in the collision and lacks an ear tag or brand, the owner may deny responsibility to avoid liability.

However, Louisiana law allows for circumstantial evidence of ownership. In cases like Buller v. American National, the court found that if an animal is found wandering with a known herd or is seen emerging from a specific owner’s field, that is often enough to establish legal responsibility. Our firm utilizes investigators to check fence lines, gather neighbor testimony, and review livestock records to ensure the correct party is held accountable.

See how dog bite liability involves issues such as Strict Liability here: Louisiana Dog Bite Laws: A Guide to Strict Liability and Owner Responsibility

Third Party Liability: Suing Landlords, Festivals, and Employers for Animal Attacks in Louisiana

Additional Berniard Law Firm Article on Animal Injury Lawsuits: If You Approach a Barking Dog and It Bites You, is the Owner Liable for your Injuries?