Court Opinion

ID: 9525878
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:09:08.237971+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:17:20.002237
License: Public Domain

PRESIDING JUSTICE HOLDRIDGE, specially concurring: I concur in the result reached by the majority, but I respectfully disagree with the basis for its decision. The issue presented is whether the court erred in directing a verdict for the defendants at the close of all the evidence. The standard of review for judgments n.o.v. and directed verdicts was set forth in Pedrick v. Peoria & Eastern R.R. Co., 37 Ill. 2d 494 (1967). Judgments should be entered or verdicts directed only where "all of the evidence, when viewed in its aspect most favorable to the opponent, so overwhelmingly favors movant that no contrary verdict based on that evidence could ever stand.” 37 Ill. 2d at 510. To recover under the Illinois Domestic Animals Running At Large Act (510 ILCS Ann. 55/1 et seq. (Michie 1995)), the plaintiff must allege and prove that the defendants did not use reasonable care in restraining the animal and that the defendants had no knowledge that the animal was running at large. Abadie v. Royer, 215 Ill. App. 3d 444 (1991), appeal denied, 141 Ill. 2d 535 (1991); O’Gara v. Kane, 38 Ill. App. 3d 641 (1976). There is no dispute that defendants were unaware that the bull was loose until after the accident. The remaining element required by the statute is whether defendants exercised reasonable care in restraining the bull from running at large. The evidence adduced by the plaintiff on the question of reasonable care consisted of testimony by defendant Keith Bauer that the fence around the feedlot from where the bull escaped was not electrified, although other fences on the farm were electrified; sturdier cattle panels than those used by the defendants were readily available for purchase; that he knew the bull could jump at least four feet, yet he used a fence only four to five feet high; that steel fence posts around the feedlot were merely driven into the ground, while other posts were sunk in concrete; and that he stored hay within a few feet of the feedlot fence. Viewing this evidence in the light of the Pedrick rule, I believe the verdict was improperly directed for the defendants. The evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, did not so overwhelmingly favor the defendants that no contrary verdict could ever stand, and I would therefore reverse the directed verdict on that basis.