11. If the neighbor sues the farmer to recover for the damage done to his crops, will the neighbor prevail?

A and C are both potentially correct. In some jurisdictions, the neighbor would prevail because the farmer's cattle damaged the neighbor's crops. In other jurisdictions, however, the neighbor would not prevail because the farmer's fence was not negligently maintained. At common law and in some jurisdictions, cattle owners are required to protect crop growers from trespass damages and therefore, are held strictly liable for damages caused by trespasses, even if the cattle owner was not negligent. Conversely, other jurisdictions favored the rights of cattle owners, and previously required landowners bordering cattle grazing lands to erect fences under «fence out» statutes. Under this framework, a cattle owner would only be held liable for intentionally driving cattle onto the land of another. In such jurisdictions, if the cattle owner is instead the party required to maintain a fence, if that fence is not negligently maintained and they did not intentionally drive cattle onto the land of another, they will not be held liable.

A is correct. For jurisdictions governed by a strict liability approach, holding cattle owners strictly liable for damage caused by cattle trespass regardless of any fault by the cattle owner. In this case, the cattle owner diligently maintained a fence to keep cattle in. However, after being frightened by a thunderstorm, the cattle broke through the fence, entered onto the neighbor's property, and severely damaged the neighbor's crops. Consequently, because the farmer's cattle damaged the neighbor's crops, the neighbor would prevail against the farmer, even though the farmer diligently maintained a fence.

C is correct. For jurisdictions which use some version of «fence out statutes.» Under the facts as presented, it is noted that landowners are not required to erect fences to prevent the intrusion of livestock. Consequently, it can be inferred that cattle owners are therefore required to erect fences to prevent their cattle from trespassing. In this case, the facts indicate that the farmer diligently maintained his fence, but that the cattle nonetheless broke through the fence and trampled the neighbor's crops. Because the farmer diligently maintained his fence and was not negligent, and did not intentionally bring his cattle onto the neighbor's land, under this framework, the farmer would not be liable to the neighbor.

B is incorrect. The neighbor would not prevail on the basis that the farmer's cattle had panicked during previous thunderstorms. Depending on the jurisdiction, either the neighbor would prevail because the farmer would be held strictly liable for trespass damage caused by the cattle, or else, the farmer would not be liable, because the farmer had diligently maintained his fence and did not intentionally stampede his cattle onto the neighbor's land.

Further, regardless of jurisdiction, liability would not attach based on cattle's propensity to be frightened by lightning. Under the Restatement (Second) of Torts, cattle are classified as domestic animals, thereby making the farmer only liable for an intentional tort or ordinary negligence. However, the farmer could still be held strictly liable for foreseeable harm resulting from a known (to the farmer) abnormally dangerous propensity in the cattle. This propensity would have to be abnormally dangerous beyond what its considered normal behavior for cattle. Here, however, although the farmer's cattle had a propensity to be frightened by lightning, there is no indication that this behavior was abnormal for cattle. Therefore, the farmer's knowledge of the cattle's fear of lightning would not be a basis for imposing liability in any jurisdiction.

D is incorrect. Regardless of jurisdiction, the thunderstorm would not cut short the farmer's potential liability to the neighbor. Under tort law, an «Act of God» (i.e., a natural disaster) can be asserted as an intervening cause which cuts short a defendant's liability, because it is unforeseeable and beyond human control. Nevertheless, defendants can be still held liable for foreseeable results of unforeseeable causes, and «Acts of God» will not cut short liability when they are foreseeable. Under the facts at issue here, the storms were not unforeseeable, because the facts indicate that they were an «occasional occurrence,» not an anomaly. Therefore, because the thunderstorm would not cut short the farmer's liability, the farmer would either be liable for negligence if his fence was not adequately maintained, or else, would be strictly liable for damage caused by the cattle. The reason why the cattle were agitated and caused trespass damage would be immaterial.