Press "Enter" to skip to content

Owner of Livestock That Caused Fatal Interstate Crash: “It Happens”

Cows get loose on the Interstate, cars crash, man dies, girl goes to hospital—it happens:

[Robert] DeBoer says his cattle followed the road around a bend, and then they were in the ditch that lines the interstate. After getting out of their pen here, the cattle didn’t have to cross any fencing. DeBoer says the whole situation makes him feel “terrible.”

“I don’t know what the answer is. Everybody has livestock,” DeBoer said. “They get cattle that get out, whether it’s in somebody’s corn field or bean field, or whatever. They get on the road, and it happens.”

He says he’s had cattle for 45 years. It’s been three years, he says, since one got out.

“There isn’t a farmer or rancher out there that hasn’t had cattle get out. And we don’t like to see that. We do our best to have the good fences and good corrals, but it just happens,” DeBoer said [Dan Santella, “Owner of Livestock Involved in Deadly Interstate Crash Speaks Out,” KELO-TV, 2017.10.23].

Is Donald Trump’s condolence writer now handling press statements for South Dakota livestock owners?

It happens, and there is an answer: get your insurance agent on the line and tell him to write some big checks to the death and injury caused by animals that are your responsibility.

25 Comments

  1. Straight outta ridge 2017-10-24 07:37

    I am really surprised that he publicly admitted liability. In a road related accident, insurance companies always encourage you to try not to admit guilt unintentionally or unnecessarily.

  2. Gail 2017-10-24 07:39

    Check the Open Range laws. A livestock owner can check and repair fences daily and if something (coyote, lightning, or whatever) spooks them, livestock will stampede and break through the best of fences. It will be interesting to know how Open Range laws will impact this.

  3. Wayne B. 2017-10-24 08:51

    I think the statements are pretty clear.

    DeBoer feels terrible his cattle got out. He made efforts to recover his cattle. He didn’t realize there was a small group which had left the rest.

    Let me tell you that cattle getting out indeed does happen, even with superb fencing. I’ve had to get up in the middle of the night to round up cattle for my uncle before. Thank goodness nobody hit a black cow on 281.

    While DeBoer is right to express sympathies and regret for the incident, is it right for his insurance company to “open up the checkbook” if DeBoer wasn’t negligent?

    I mean, if (heaven forbid) I run over a bicyclist on the highway because the bicyclist didn’t stop at a controlled intersection and I had right of way (you know, a “cross traffic does not stop” type of intersection), and the Highway Patrol rule I was not at fault, should my insurance company write a check anyway? It’s not a perfect analogy by any stretch, but hopefully you get my point.

    I guarantee I’m going to feel terrible for what happened – I think any of us would. But that doesn’t equate to monetary damages.

  4. mike from iowa 2017-10-24 09:03

    Sorry Wayne B, but there are no obedience schools for domestic livestock. The farmer is ( or at least should be) liable for damages when his livestock wander onto roadways and cause damages. Isn’t that why people have liability insurance?

    Mayhaps the farmer can claim sovereignty-like the state does when state managed animals wreck vehicles the state is not liable. If you take one of their managed animals out f season, they are worth plenty to the state.

  5. Rorschach 2017-10-24 09:48

    Wayne B. is correct about no negligence = no insurance payout. I’m not saying whether or not there was negligence on the farmer’s part. That will be investigated. But if he wasn’t negligent to a significant extent then his insurance will not be responsible for damages. This was a tragedy, and the fault will have to be sorted out.

    The deceased in this accident was not wearing a seatbelt when he hit a stopped vehicle at interstate speeds. Head – meet windshield. He’s the second traffic fatality in the last couple of days who wasn’t wearing a seatbelt. Guy from Lead got thrown from his vehicle on his way home from Deadwood when he missed a curve the other night. Seems to me there was another non-seatbelt fatality a few days ago too. Who’s handing out the Darwin Awards?

  6. bearcreekbat 2017-10-24 10:23

    Ror is only partially correct in stating “no negligence = no insurance payout.” An insurance company that refuses to settle a claim until after an adjudication of negligence is taking quite a gamble.

    The company’s first duty is to protect the insured by settling disputed claims within the policy limits. If the company has a chance to settle within the policy limits, but refuses, there is always the possibility that a plaintiff claiming negligence will obtain a jury verdict greatly exceeding the policy limits. When that happens a defendant/insured may be able to sue his insurance company for acting in “bad faith” by refusing to settle within policy limits and unnecessarily exposing the defendant/insured to a judgment exceeding these limits.

    The ABA surveyed each state on this issue. Here is what they found in South Dakota:

    Insurer’s Duty to Settle: Implied in every insurance contract is a covenant that neither party will do anything to injure the rights of the other in receiving the benefits of the agreement. Harter v. Plains Ins. Co., 579 N.W.2d 625, 631 (S.D. 1998)(quoting Helmbolt v. LeMars Mut. Ins. Co. Inc., 404 N.W.2d 55, 57 (S.D. 1987)). The covenant includes a duty to settle claims without litigation in appropriate cases. Id.

    A failure to make a good faith settlement may provide a basis for a bad faith claim if the judgment against the insured exceeds the policy limits. See, e.g., Crabb v. Nat’l Indem. Co., 205 N.W.2d 633, 639 (S.D. 1973). In considering what constitutes good or bad faith, the interests of the insured must be given equal consideration with those of the insurer; in making a decision to try a case or settle, the insurer must in good faith view the circumstances as it would if there were no policy limits applicable to the claim. Id. at 636.

    https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/litigation/materials/2015_inscle_materials/written_materials/4_1_the_right_and_duty_to_settle_thirdparty_liability_claims.authcheckdam.pdf

  7. o 2017-10-24 11:06

    Isn’t your property your responsibility? Isn’t that why there is insurance? Or do accidents (like freezing in an ice storm) only happen TO cattle that there is an expectation of damages payments?

  8. bearcreekbat 2017-10-24 11:39

    mfi, I think your link answers your question:

    Iowa law does not require that animals be fenced in. It does require, however, that owners of livestock owe a duty of care to ensure that their livestock does not cause property damage or personal injury. When a livestock owner is negligent in supervising their animals or in maintaining their pens or enclosures, Iowa law permits a person who has suffered an injury to themselves, their land, or their property to recover damages.

    So apparently in Iowa you can be held liable for failure to properly “supervise” your livestock, even if you are not required to build a fence. Perhaps that is why ranchers typically put up fences – to protect against liability.

    South Dakota has similar fencing laws. If you want to keep your neighbor’s farm animals off your property, you can invoke statutes that require your neighbor to build one half of the fence between your properties and you must build the other half.

    [SDCL] 43-23-1. Erection and maintenance of partition fence–Liability of owners of adjoining land. Unless adjoining landowners otherwise agree, every owner of land shall be liable for one-half of the expense of erecting and maintaining a partition fence between his own and adjoining lands. However, no owner of land is liable for such expense if neither keeps livestock on the affected tract of land and neither derives any other substantial benefit from the fence for a period of five years from the date of erection or repair of the fence.

    A rancher friend has told me the rule is different with forest service land. He said he is required to put up and maintain all the fencing where his land borders public land.

  9. mike from iowa 2017-10-24 12:31

    Kinda what I was thinking, Bear, but isn’t not fencing animals negligence, in and of itself?

    There is always the possibility of animal theft whether they are fenced or

    Too confusing for me on a Tuesday. I will leave the legal problems to minds better suited to handling them. not.

  10. PlanningStudent 2017-10-24 15:03

    I used to take Old Hill City Road home after dark between Hill City and Keystone and there was a group of black cattle that were allowed to open roam, including on the roadway. I called the Pennington County Sheriff and they told me to be more careful, those cattle had a right to be there. They further stated I could be held liable for damages if I hit the cow..!

    This bring to mind this other case in SoDak: http://rapidcityjournal.com/news/local/biker-sues-sd-ranchers-in-buffalo-mauling/article_28c9f153-6d3b-5ab2-8a0d-82493215c07a.html

  11. mike from iowa 2017-10-24 15:19

    Can you pick out any buffalo or bison and prove it is inherently dangerous? Size alone makes them a hazard to puny human’s health.

    Bet there weren’t many in that group of four that looked like they tangled with a Harley, either. I.D. should not have been a problem.

  12. Cory Allen Heidelberger Post author | 2017-10-24 22:05

    Bear, thanks for the fence statute! That seems to point to some response to Gail’s opening note about open-range laws. I-90 in East River isn’t open range, is it? The statute Bear cites says to me cattle can’t just run loose; the owner has an obligation to keep them fenced in, rather than the state having an obligation to keep them fenced out of roadways.

    But Bear, let me see if I have this straight: If I buy a quarter section to build a little hacienda and liberal bunker, and a neighbor runs cattle on the rest of the section, the law requires that I pay for half of the fence, even if I don’t keep any animals on my land?

    And if I do get into cattle ranching, do I foot the entire bill for erecting the fence between my property and the adjoining roadway?

  13. Cory Allen Heidelberger Post author | 2017-10-24 22:06

    PlanningStudent, what kind of PETA-activist sheriff does Pennington County have? Cows with rights? Piffle!

  14. Joseph Voigt 2017-10-24 23:04

    I’m not quite up to date on open range in South Dakota, but I believe all of West River is open range, parts of East River might still be, and I think there is still some open range laws on the books.

    Yes, if you are a property owner you are required to have fence and maintain fence on your half of the property line. I’m not sure what the requirement is but I believe its 3 barb standard post line.

    I’m shocked he is talking, but these type of things happen, if you are close to the interstate you should be a little more cautious with it, but it does happen. I remember chasing cattle numerous times when I was a kid. I remember almost hitting a few cattle a few times in my day.

  15. Laurisa 2017-10-25 10:36

    Regarding liability and insurance company payouts: I was just in Tampa, FL, for a wedding last weekend and the huge story there, in the papers and on the radio, was that GEICO had paid $20,000 to the families of four teenagers involved in a terrible car accident; three were killed and the fourth was paralyzed. But here’s the kicker: these teens stole a car and were speeding in excess of 100 mph through Tampa streets in the middle of the night when they hit a driver either going to or coming from work (I can’t remember which), badly injuring him.

    The police determined ALL the fault was with the teenagers. GEICO was his insurance company, and not even three months after the accident they paid the $20,000 to the families; that amount was the other driver’s insurance limit. The other real kicker is that none of the families had even filed any lawsuits, and all of the lawyers interviewed said that, even if they had, no lawyer would have taken it and it would have been laughed out of court.

    Now, amid all the public furor, GEICO claims that it needed to do that to “protect” its policyholder from further financial demands from the families. But even lawyers are saying that makes no sense. Meanwhile, the driver has been unable to work and the bills are piling up and GEICO has yet to make any payments to him on his behalf.

    It seems to me that this rancher’s attitude leaves a lot to be desired. Livestock DO NOT BELONG on interstate highways, period and it is HIS responsibility to ensure that that doesn’t happen. Then again, knowing how lopsided the laws in this state are in favor of farmers and ranchers, I wouldn’t be surprised if he weren’t considered to have any legal liability.

  16. Caroline 2017-10-25 18:05

    You might have printed the entire story which would help to clarify whether or not the cattle owner was liable. Coyotes spooked the cows and they broke through gates/fences. He attempted to get them all penned again, but did not immediately realize he didn’t have them all. Those he did not have made their way to the interstate. If any of you know how to prevent coyotes from spooking cattle through fences and gates, lots of farmers would appreciate your expert advice.

  17. Cory Allen Heidelberger Post author | 2017-10-25 21:59

    Caroline, spooked or not, the cattle are the rancher’s property. It is at least insensitive, if not well short of a good legal defense, to say of a fatal accident caused by one’s property, “It happens.”

  18. Wayne B. 2017-10-26 13:46

    And if you take DeBoer’s comments in full context, you see the decency of this guy’s soul.

    First, he expresses dismay for the event. Then he talks about ways to prevent it, and comes to a loss. He tried to point to the fact that he hadn’t had cattle get out for several years as evidence he’s not a negligent guy. (As opposed to a certain feedlot on Hwy 19 where the locals know sick cattle which can’t get taken to market get turned out to be hit on the road in order to collect insurance on property loss.) The wise cattle owners invest in good fences because they’re smart enough to know it’s better to fix & replace fence on your own time than to chase cattle on their schedule (when you’d just as soon be in a combine or air seeder).

    My uncle makes amazing 5-wire fences that are the bane of our pheasant hunting experience. They’re mighty good at keeping cattle where they belong, but they’re not indestructible. You get 20 head in a corner, spook them good, and they’ll bust through that fence lickedy split.

    I wish KELO had actually aired DeBoer saying he felt terrible, rather than just reporting he said it. But, I don’t hear callousness in DeBoer’s voice when he said “it happens”; I hear pragmatic vexation.

  19. Caroline 2017-10-26 14:40

    Wayne B- perfectly stated!! I don’t know Mr. DeBoer, but I think you have explained things in a very fair and accurate way.

  20. mike from iowa 2017-10-26 16:57

    DeBoer says the cattle were spooked two days before getting out. He also apparently did not know how many head of cattle he had and didn’t bother to try to count them when they were in the yard.

    But he knew right away when they heard sirens his cattle were on the interstate. Ooookay.

  21. Cory Allen Heidelberger Post author | 2017-10-27 07:06

    “Pragmatic vexation” — I do like that phrase. Too bad Wayne wasn’t the one on the news expressing the problem.

    Better fences make better, still living neighbors.

  22. Wayne B. 2017-10-27 09:39

    Cory, may I never have to be interviewed for such a tragic event. And may none of us reading this suffer such a fate, especially Mike, lest he get a taste of his own medicine.

  23. mike from iowa 2017-10-27 11:08

    Wayne B, regardless of what you think of me, the rancher’s words don’t add up. His lawyer prolly should have told him to put a sock in it. He didn’t make himself appear to be terribly contrite, but I did catch a bit of I’m the victim here.

    My livestock handling days are long gone, but whenever the landlord’s cattle get out I am on the phone to him immediately and he knows exactly how many cattle go in which lot or pasture and he never leaves until the job is finished.

    That is common sense and common decency.

  24. mike from iowa 2017-10-27 11:11

    I also report other people’s livestock that are in the fields or roads and try to keep an eye on them until the owner(s) show up. I do not want to see anyone die because livestock was where it wasn’t supposed to be. Day or night.

Comments are closed.