{"id":16476,"date":"2026-09-21T01:15:51","date_gmt":"2026-09-21T06:15:51","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/?p=16476"},"modified":"2026-09-15T13:19:55","modified_gmt":"2026-09-15T18:19:55","slug":"texas-appellate-court-rules-on-vehicle-versus-cow-collision","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2026\/09\/21\/texas-appellate-court-rules-on-vehicle-versus-cow-collision\/","title":{"rendered":"Texas Appellate Court Rules on Vehicle-Versus-Cow Collision"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Eastland Court of Appeals recently ruled<\/a> in Surrento v. Cactus Growers, Inc<\/em>.<\/em>,\u00a0a vehicle-versus-cow case involving a number of defendants.\u00a0 This case illustrates a number of important considerations when it comes to Texas fence law.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>

Cow walking on paved roadway \/ Photo by Karin Kim on Unsplash<\/em><\/p><\/div>\n

Background<\/strong><\/p>\n

Brianna Surrento was killed when her vehicle hit a cow on the highway near the Doss Ranch.<\/p>\n

The Doss Ranch is owned by the Doss Foundation.\u00a0 At the time of the accident, the ranch was leased to Jackie Warren.\u00a0 Warren had entered into a grazing lease agreement with Jeffrey Carlisle, who kept about 250 head of cattle on the land pursuant to an agreement with Cactus Growers, who owned the cattle herd.<\/p>\n

Relevant here are two pastures, the West and East Pastures, which are divided by County Road 135.\u00a0 South of the two pastures is State\u00a0 Highway 180.\u00a0 Jeffrey Carlisle testified that cattle were kept only in the West Pasture.<\/p>\n

Between 4:00 and 6:00 pm on the day of the accident, the Gaines County Sheriff’s Office was dispatched to a location near the Doss ranch for a cow outside the fence.\u00a0 She had a green ear tag.\u00a0 The Sergeant on scene called Jeffrey Carlisle to ask about the cow.\u00a0 Jeffrey said his cattle had yellow and blue tags but admitted there may be a few with green tags.\u00a0 The Sergeant herded the cow to a gate leading to the East pasture, let her in, and secured the gate.\u00a0 After receiving the call from the Sheriff’s deputy, Jeffrey Carlisle sent one of his ranch hands to investigate the property, fences, and cattle.\u00a0 The hand said the fences showed no breaches, gates were closed, and he did not see cattle outside of the fenced area.<\/p>\n

At 8:19 pm, dispatch received another call that two black cows were spotted on Highway 180 just west of County Road 135.\u00a0 The dispatcher called the ranch hand to let him know.\u00a0 Shortly after that, the accident that killed Brianna occurred.<\/p>\n

Jeffrey Carlisle said he could not identify the cow involved in the accident.\u00a0 However, a Texas Department of Public Safety Trooper testified that while at the scene, Carlisle told her the cow was owned by Cactus Feeders and was part of the herd he was taking care of for Cactus.<\/p>\n

Litigation<\/strong><\/p>\n

Brianna’s father, Michael, brought suit against Cactus Growers, the Doss Foundation, Jeffrey Carlisle, and Jackie Warren claiming gross negligence and statutory liability under the Texas Agriculture Code Section 143.102.<\/p>\n

The Defendants moved for summary judgment, and the trial court granted those motions and dismissed the case.<\/p>\n

Brianna’s father appealed.<\/p>\n

Eastland Court of Appeals Opinion<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Eastland Court of Appeals affirmed.\u00a0 [Read order here<\/a>.]<\/p>\n

The court addressed a number of issues on appeal.<\/p>\n

Procedural Issues<\/span><\/p>\n

Michael raised several procedural issues.<\/p>\n

Expert report exclusion:<\/em>\u00a0 The court excluded two expert reports that Michael offered as summary judgment evidence, finding that he failed to properly disclose these experts, and the reports were not provided in discovery. Michael provided the expert names and reports after the deadline and offered no effort to demonstrate good cause for the late designation.\u00a0 \u00a0The appellate court held the trial court did not err in excluding these reports.<\/p>\n

Excluded exhibits<\/em>: The court also excluded a number of additional exhibits Michael sought to offer such as depositions, the lease agreement between the Doss Foundation and Warren, and a DPS crash investigation report.\u00a0 The court took each of these exhibits into consideration during their review of the appeal, and held that even if they were properly admitted, they would not have changed the result of the trial court’s rulings, so any error in the court’s striking them was harmless.<\/p>\n

Adequate discovery time:\u00a0<\/em>Michael argued that the trial court granted summary judgment before allowing adequate time for discovery on whether Cactus “knowingly permitted” the cow to run at large.\u00a0 Michael, however, did not file a verified motion for continuance or an affidavit seeking more time for discovery on the issue of “knowingly permitted” as required by Texas law to extend discovery time.\u00a0 Additionally, the appellate court found that Michael did not exercise due diligence in obtaining the requested discovery. He delayed the deposition of Cactus Growers for 17 months after the filing of the lawsuit and only sought to take it 15 days before the discovery deadline.\u00a0 \u00a0The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Michael’s motion for further discovery.<\/p>\n

Merits<\/span><\/p>\n

The court turned next to Michael’s merits arguments.<\/p>\n

Texas fence law:\u00a0 <\/em>The court set forth a detailed description of recent Texas case law regarding animals hit on a state highway. Pursuant to Texas Agriculture Code 143.102, a state and US highways are closed range, and a livestock owner may not “knowingly permit” animals from running at large. Texas courts have explained that it is not enough that a livestock owner should have known but does not actually know their livestock have been permitted to roam at large on the highway. Likewise, courts have held “the mere fact an animal escapes and makes its way onto a highway does not support a finding of culpability.” To satisfy the “knowingly permit” standard, there must be evidence that a livestock owner was reasonably certain a cow could escape and roam at large.\u00a0 The most probative evidence is the actual knowledge of the livestock owner in the current situation.\u00a0 Additional circumstantial evidence can include the condition of the fences and the history of the owner’s animals escaping. This requires more than a “temporary escape,” but instead must show the animal was allowed as a matter of course to graze and move freely in an unconfined area.<\/p>\n

Jeffrey Carlisle:<\/em>\u00a0 Carlisle filed a summary judgment motion claiming there was no evidence that he permitted a cow to roam at large on Highway 180. Michael argued a combination of inadequate fencing and prior escapes was sufficient evidence to create an issue of fact on this question.\u00a0 The appellate court disagreed, finding that he failed to offer sufficient evidence that the\u00a0West Pasture<\/em> fences (where the cattle were kept) were inadequate, focusing instead only on the East Pasture<\/em> fencing. Additionally, the fencing evidence was offered by the expert that the court property excluded from trial.\u00a0 Thus, it could not be considered. Additionally, the court found insufficient evidence to show that there were cattle allowed to be in the East Pasture. When there was the earlier report of cattle out, Carlisle sent his ranch hand to inspect the fences, gates, and cows.\u00a0 He did not see any breach in the fencing. The court did not err in holding there was no evidence to show that Carlisle knowingly permitted the cow to run at large.<\/p>\n

Cactus Growers<\/em>:\u00a0 Michael claimed that Cactus was liable as the owner of the cow.\u00a0 Cactus argued that even if it was the owner, it did not have control of the cow because the responsibility for care and control was delegated to Carlisle. Importantly, the court refused to answer the question of whether an owner who delegates control of an animal to another can remain liable under Section 143.102, because regardless, there was no evidence that Cactus Growers knowingly permitted the cow to run at large. For the same reason that Michael’s circumstantial evidence regarding knowledge failed against Carlisle, it fails against Cactus Growers. There was simply no evidence of inadequate fencing or subsequent patterns of escapes. In light of this, summary judgment was properly granted.<\/p>\n

Warren and the Doss Foundation<\/em>: Both Warren and the Doss Foundation moved for summary judgement arguing there was no evidence that they had any ownership or responsibility for the cow and that there was no evidence they knowingly permitted the cow to run at large. Looking at the statutory language, the court notes the distinction of those who may be liable under the statute–those who own or have responsibility for the livestock animal<\/em>–versus those who own the property<\/em>. The applicability of Section 143.102 is to the person who owns or is responsible for the animals, not the land.\u00a0 Further, there was nothing in the lease agreements between the parties that gave Warren or the Doss Foundation control over the cattle.\u00a0 A clause stating that Warren would prorate the cost of fence repairs against the lease price did not create the necessary type of responsibility for the cattle.\u00a0 \u00a0Regardless, the court noted, there was no evidence that Warren or the Doss Foundation acted knowingly to permit the cow to run at large.\u00a0 Summary judgment was proper against these defendants.<\/p>\n

Gross Negligence:\u00a0\u00a0<\/em>Because the court found no evidence to support Michael’s claims under Section 143.102, they needed not reach the question of gross negligence.<\/p>\n

Amended Petitions<\/span><\/p>\n

The court rejected an argument that the trial court improperly struck Michaels’ fifth amended petition.\u00a0 The appellate court held that this was harmless error because the summary judgement motion was sufficiently broad to respond to any differences between the fourth and fifth amended complaints.<\/p>\n

Conclusion<\/span><\/p>\n

The trial court ruling granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants was affirmed.\u00a0 (Do note that the deadline for filing a Petition for Review at the Texas Supreme Court has not yet passed.)<\/p>\n

Key Takeaways<\/strong><\/p>\n

This case highlights many key points regarding fence law.<\/p>\n