Court Opinion

ID: 9679115
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 06:41:01.960194+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:10.264975
License: Public Domain

UHLENHOPP, Justice
(dissenting).
There is no direct evidence that the cattle were attacked by dogs or wild animals. The case hangs on this question and answer (by plaintiff to his expert, a veterinarian):
Q. Now, Doctor, do you have an opinion with reasonable medical probability, as to the cause of the contraction of this disease?
A. Yes, I feel certain that the disease is through a bite. We considered it from a wild animal to either the individual animal or also from a wild animal to hogs, or a carrier that therefore would go ahead and bite the cattle.
The trial court held that the cattle contracted the disease (a) from a bite by a wild animal or (b) from a bite from a hog which had been bitten by a wild animal.
Plaintiff did not prove which of these possibilities is the fact. Therefore for plaintiff to prevail, he must show that both possibilities are covered by the policy.
The policy covers “loss of livestock by * * * attack by dogs or wild animals.”
A heifer bitten by a hog which has been bitten by a wild animal has not been attacked by a dog or wild animal, and the judgment dismissing the petition should be affirmed.
MASON and REES, JJ., join in this dissent.