RANCHING Wildlife
Graham Land & Cattle Co.
Custom Feedlot And Growing Programs
P.O. Box 925 • Gonzales, Texas 78629 (830) 672-6504 Office
Charles Graham, DVM, Owner - (512) 285-4833 Tyler Graham, Owner
Jay Gray, Gen. Mgr. - (830) 437-5665
Maurice Janda, Feedyard Mgr. - (830) 672-6504
www.grahamfeedyard.com • e-mail:
grahamcattle@gvec.net
NEEL POLLED HEREFORDS
Ann Neel
220 Sunset, Laredo, TX 78041 Registered
Polled Hereford Breeding Bulls
FOR SALE
Parker J. Neel 956-763-4640
Nina Neel Sanders 214-454-8587
Kyle Sanford 956-775-8957
Texas Supreme Court Classifi es Mosquitos as Wild Animals, Discharges Liability for Mosquito Bites
By Kendall Kelly Hayden and K T By Kendall Kelly Hayden and Karl A. S hulz, Cozen O’Connor Law Firm A. Schulz, Cozen O’Connor Law Fir
HE TEXAS SUPREME COURT HANDED PROPERTY OWNERS A MAJOR VICTORY ON AN ISSUE of increasing importance as West Nile Virus and Zika Virus spread
around the country. The court held that the doctrine of ferae naturae limits a property owner’s liability for harm from indigenous wild animals that the property owner has not attracted to its property. As a result, the court dismissed the claims of a worker who asserted that the property owner should have protected him from mosquito bites that infected him with West Nile Virus. The plaintiff, William Nami, a long-time worker for Union Pacifi c Rail-
road, worked in a part of southeast Texas that is well known for mosquitos, with one town even boasting that it is the “mosquito capital of the world.” Union Pacifi c issued various bulletins and other warnings about mosquitos. While Nami operated a piece of equipment, a tamper, the tamper’s cab
failed to seal properly, and Nami was bitten regularly by mosquitos. After unsuccessfully complaining to his superiors to change these conditions, Nami ultimately developed fl u-like symptoms and was diagnosed with West Nile Virus. He sued Union Pacifi c under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA), which is generally based on common law negligence principles. At trial, the jury attributed fault to both Union Pacifi c (80 percent) and
SEPT. 28-30, 2016 Sheraton Austin at the Capitol
AUSTIN, TEXAS
Nami (20 percent). Nami was awarded $752,000.00 in damages. On appeal, Union Pacifi c argued that it owed Nami no legal duty to protect him from mosquitos pursuant to the doctrine of ferae naturae. The intermediate court of appeals held that even if the doctrine applied, which it did not decide, Union Pacifi c was still liable for negligence because it created the conditions that attracted mosquitos to Nami’s worksite. In an 8-1 decision, Texas Supreme Court reversed and rendered in favor
of Union Pacifi c. After a brief discussion of how common law generally guides the application of FELA, the court explained that the common law governing responsibility for actions of animals divides animals into tame, domestic animals (domitae naturae) and wild animals (ferae naturae). Mosquitos are classifi ed as wild animals. The court held that a property owner is generally not liable for harm
REGISTER NOW
tscra.org/policyconference 90 The Cattleman September 2016
caused by wild animals on the owner’s property. The court explained that, under the doctrine of ferae naturae, a property owner is not liable for the acts of wild animals against an invitee unless the property owner reduces the animals to his possession, attracts animals to the property, or knows of an unreasonable risk and neither mitigates the risk nor warns the invi- tee. The court observed that Union Pacifi c had done nothing to attract or take possession of the mosquitos that are a well-known, indigenous pest throughout that part of the state.
thecattlemanmagazine.com
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132