Q: We operate a ranch in Alberta and keep several bulls penned in a
steel coral. One day they broke out and wandered into our neighbour’s
field because several of his gates were open. Our bulls then broke
through a fence where his bull was kept and the bulls got into a fight.
His bull ended up with a broken leg and had to be put down.
The neighbour made a claim and our insurance settled the matter. The
Read Also
Starting a small business comes with legal considerations
This article sets out some of the legal considerations to start a business to sell home-grown product, such as vegetables, herbs, fruit or honey.
insurance company took the position that bulls are dangerous animals
and as such we are responsible.
However, I would like to know what liability one has for damage caused
by bulls? In our view, everyone here keeps bulls and cattle that
sometimes wander and stray. We believe damages like this should simply
be the cost of doing business.
We would point out this is the first time our bulls ever escaped. In
addition, had the neighbour kept the gate closed, this would not have
happened.
Furthermore, one of our neighbour’s bulls wandered onto our land. We
simply rounded up the bull and delivered it back.
A: Alberta’s Stray Animals Act provides that “no person shall permit or
allow any livestock owned by another person.”
It says when livestock trespass, the owner
of those animals is liable for any damage caused.
However, there is no liability in cases where the person suffering the
loss is at fault. Does leaving a gate open mean the person is at fault?
The act says an owner is not at fault simply because he could have
prevented the damage by fencing his land.
Manitoba legislation also makes an animal owner liable for any damage
caused when it strays. As in Alberta, the liability applies even though
the person suffering the damage could have avoided the loss by fencing
his land.
However, in Manitoba, municipalities can allow animals to run at large,
but not bulls over nine months old. Saskatchewan legislation also
allows municipalities to allow animals to wander at large. If allowed
to wander at large, the owner of the animals is not liable for damages
they cause unless they break through a lawful fence.
To implement your view that damage from stray animals be regarded as
part of the cost of doing business would require a change in
legislation. Whether such a change is wise is something that would have
to be debated. Assume a herd of cows destroyed Jones’ canola crop.
Would it be fair to say that Jones must bear the loss as this is the
cost of doing business?
The fact that cattle stray was acknowledged in a recent Saskatchewan
case. In the case Block vs. Cole, the judge said “all witnesses
testified that it is a familiar occurrence for animals to escape from
fenced enclosures and therefore the risk of stray cattle entering one’s
property is known to most farmers.”
In that case cattle strayed to the neighbour’s slough where he had
dumped insecticide-treated canola seed. The cattle became ill and
eventually died. The owner sued for their loss. The judge noted that
the neighbour had dumped the treated seed in a manner contrary to the
Pest Control Act and normally would be liable for any resulting losses.
However, while the neighbour may have been negligent in disposing of
the treated seed, and while cattle may stray, the law was clear. Under
Saskatchewan’s Stray Animals Act, a landowner is not liable “for any
damage to a stray caused while the stray is on his property.”
In a different scenario, a trespasser alleged he was injured because a
farmer did not control his dangerous bull. In the British Columbia case
of Smith vs. Atson Farms, William Smith climbed over the fence to cross
the farm. He was charged by the bull. He argued the farmers failed to
keep their bull under control and failed to warn about the bull’s
fierce and mischievous ways. The farmers pleaded the Occupiers
Liability Act, which many provinces have as similar laws. Under that
rule a farm operator has no liability to a trespasser unless the farmer
deliberately sets out to harm someone.
Don Purich is a former practising lawyer who is now involved in
publishing, teaching and writing about legal issues. His columns are
intended as general advice only. Individuals are encouraged to seek
other opinions and/ or personal counsel when dealing with legal matters.
