McLaughlin Freight Lines v. Gentrup

One night, a semi-tractor trailer truck collided with cattle on a Nebraska highway. The truck driver was not injured, but the truck, which was the property of McLaughlin Freight Lines, Inc. (McLaughlin) (plaintiff), was damaged. McLaughlin sued Marvin Gentrup (defendant), the cattle’s owner, based on res ipsa loquitur, a common-law tort doctrine that permitted an inference or a presumption of a defendant’s negligent conduct to be presented to a jury. Under res ipsa loquitur, the following three elements had to be met: (1) the incident had to be of the type that would not happen in the general course of things without negligence; (2) the instruments involved in the incident had to be under the complete control of the person alleged to be a wrongdoer; and (3) there had to be the lack of an explanation by the alleged wrongdoer. In determining whether res ipsa loquitur was applicable, a court had to decide whether evidence was present to enable a reasonable person to state that it was more likely than not that the res ipsa loquitur elements had been fulfilled. If such evidence existed, there was an inference of negligence, which raised a question of material fact, making summary judgment improper. Gentrup sought summary judgment, which a district court granted because Nebraska statute § 25-21,274 indicated that the fact that livestock escaped, by itself, was not sufficient to infer negligence and Gentrup had explained how the cattle could have escaped without negligence. McLaughlin appealed. On appeal, the Nebraska Supreme Court assessed whether the district court was correct to apply the common-law doctrine of res ipsa loquitur in light of the statutory provision of § 25-21,274. The doctrine was applicable to cases involving escaped livestock based on the factual circumstances. Gentrup had testified (1) regarding the construction of his steel holding pen, which was anchored into the ground with cement; (2) regarding his use of the pen without incidents of escape for over 15 years; (3) that he had latched the gate and hung the chain in such a way that the cattle could not knock it off through rubbing against it or licking it, though he explained this was what likely occurred; and (4) that after the escape, the pen was not damaged, and the gate was open. Under these facts, the supreme court determined that a reasonable person could hold that it was more likely than not that escape from such a holding pen did not happen in the general course of things without negligence, making summary judgment improper. The supreme court then considered whether § 25-21,274 barred the application of res ipsa loquitur.