The Plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident after his vehicle collided with a steer which had escaped from a nearby farm property. The steer belonged to Walkhavern Farms Ltd., a family-run operation owned by Collin and Maud Walker. The Plaintiff sued for negligence and public nuisance, alleging the farm failed to adequately contain the animal. The Defendants brought a motion for summary judgment on the basis that there was no evidentiary foundation presented by the Plaintiff to support his claims.
Background
The Plaintiff was the driver of a motor vehicle that struck a steer on County Road 42 in Stayner, Ontario. The steer was the property of the Defendant, Walkhavern Farms Ltd., which was owned by the co-Defendants, Collin and Maud Walker.
The pasture on the farm where the steer was kept had a paiged wire fencing system that had already been installed when the Walker family purchased it in 2018. Although the fencing system was not replaced, it was regularly maintained and routinely inspected for any damage requiring repair. The fence posts were also inspected to ensure that they remained stable and in good condition.
On the day of the accident, the farm team moved five cattle into a two-acre pasture. Prior to the move, the pasture fence was inspected, and the paige wire fencing was lifted back into place. The Defendants checked on the cattle multiple times throughout the day, the last time being around 5:00 pm for around an hour.
Sometime after 6:00 pm, the steer escaped and found his way onto County Road 42, roughly 1,000 feet from its pasture, at a farm just north of the Defendants’ property. The steer was then struck by the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and subsequently removed from the road by Collin and his son.
After the steer was removed, Collin inspected the fence and found no issues—there were no gaps, and the fence had not been pushed down. He surmised that the steer may have jumped the fence, possibly after being spooked by wildlife. The Defendants deposed that this was the first time one of their cattle escaped from the pasture, and that one had not escaped since the accident.
Position of the Parties
The Defendants argued that the Plaintiff had presented no evidentiary foundation to support his claims of negligence, breach of duty of care, or public nuisance. They relied on case law addressing the obligations of farmers and livestock escaping from fenced areas, and argued that the Plaintiff had an obligation to put his best foot forward in establishing his case.
On the other hand, the Plaintiff argued that there were issues of negligence as well as breach of duty of care in the manner the Defendants fenced the cattle into their pasture. Specifically, the Plaintiff argued that the Defendants failed to comply with government directives and known cattle management practices.
Court’s Analysis of Negligence and Duty of Care
The Court concluded that the Plaintiff had not provided evidence, expert or otherwise, to form a nexus between the actions or inactions of the Defendants, and the claims of negligence, or breach of duty of care. Rather, the Plaintiff relied on the Court to make such a nexus on the evidence that the Defendants failed as cattle farmers to prevent their cattle from escaping.
The Court ultimately granted the motion for summary judgment and dismissed the action of the Plaintiff for the following reasons:
- There was no evidence presented that indicated that the size, type, length or height of the fence was inappropriate to use either as material to the fence in cattle or because of the pasture’s proximity to the road.
- There was no evidence presented that the maintenance of the fence or scheduling of maintenance was improper in any way, and this was an isolated, unprecedented event.
- There was no evidence on how the steer escaped from the enclosure apart from Collin’s evidence that the steer may have been spooked by wildlife and jumped the fence.
- No other cattle escaped, and there had been no similar incidents before or since the incident.
Most importantly, there was no evidence provided by the Plaintiff that contradicted the evidence as it related to the fence, the maintenance of the fence and the behavior of the cattle that were placed into a new environment by the Defendants. The only evidence put forward was presented by the Defendants.
In light of the above, the Court concluded that the mere fact that a farm animal escaped a fenced area was not enough to find the Defendants responsible in law for the escaped farm animal.
With respect to the Plaintiff’s claim of public nuisance, the Court held that there was no evidence presented that the conduct of the Defendants was unreasonable in some way that resulted in the steer escaping and being on the road.
Takeaway
This decision underscores an important principle, being that the mere fact that an animal escapes does not automatically mean the farm or the owner of the animal is legally liable. Concrete evidence of negligence or unsafe conditions is necessary.
However, in order to protect against liability, it is important that farm owners maintain and regularly inspect fencing, and document inspections and any repairs.
See Ouderkirk v. Walkhavern Farms Limited et al., 2025 ONSC 2551 (CanLII), https://canlii.ca/t/kbwg3
