Personal Injury Law

Tennessee's Leading Tort Cases - Animals - Generally

By John Day

This is one of a series of posts that will excerpt sections from the third edition of my book, Day on Torts: Leading Tennessee Tort Cases.  The book will be available about May 1, 2010.  To order the book go here.

§ 5.1       Generally

The Case: Stinson v. Carpenter, No. 01A01-9601-CV00036, 1997 WL 24877 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 24, 1997).

The Basic Facts: Plaintiff struck and killed a bison that had wondered onto the highway on which he was driving. Plaintiff's truck incurred significant damage. Plaintiff brought suit against the owner of a small herd of buffalos that had recently escaped in the area, although the buffalo hit by Plaintiff was without an ear tag that the all of the Defendant's buffalos were allegedly marked with.

The Bottom Line: 

• 'The owner of a domesticated animal may be held liable for the harm the animal causes if he or she negligently failed to prevent the harm. [Restatement (Second) of Torts] § 518(b) (1977). Thus, the owner of a domesticated animal must exercise such reasonable care to prevent the animal from injuring another as an ordinarily careful and prudent person would exercise under the same circumstances. Groce Provision Co. v. Dortch, [350 S.W.2d 409, 413 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1961)]. The owner cannot permit the animal to run at large, Tenn. Code Ann. § 44-8-401(a) (1993); Overby v. Poteat, [332 S.W.2d 197, 200 (Tenn. 1960)]; Wilson v. White, [102 S.W.2d 531, 533-34 (Tenn. 1936)], and cannot knowingly or negligently permit the animal to escape and fail to make reasonable efforts to capture it. See Way v. Bohannon, 688 S.W.2d 89, 91 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1985); Troutt v. Branham, 660 S.W.2d 502, 505 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1983); Groce Provision Co. v. Dortch, 49 Tenn. App. at 67, 350 S.W.2d at 413.' 1997 WL 24877 at *4.

Other Sources of Note: The 2007 General Assembly adopted new legislation that addresses the liability of dog owners for injuries caused by their dogs. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 44-17-201, et seq. There are several other statutes that establish a duty to keep animals from roaming at large. See, e.g., Tenn. Code Ann. § 44-8-109 (requiring that owners of 'notoriously mischievous stock, known to be in the habit of throwing down or jumping fences' keep such livestock confined on their premises or suffer liability for damage to enclosure or crops of another); Tenn. Code Ann. § 44-8-401 (making it unlawful for owners of livestock to willfully allow the same to run at large); Tenn. Code Ann. § 44-8-403 (providing that no person shall suffer any stallion or jackass over fifteen months old to run at large); and Tenn. Code Ann. § 44-8-408 (making it generally unlawful for a person owning or having control of a dog to allow the dog 'to go upon the premises of another, or upon a highway, or upon a public street'). McElroy v. Carter, 2006 WL 2805141 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 29, 2006) holds that a cat owner did not have a duty to prevent her cat from entering on the plaintiff's land and causing damages to plaintiff's vehicle.

Full post as published by Day on Torts on April 14, 2010 (boomark / email).