Anthony W. Paslat

Following a successful Rule 21 motion striking the plaintiff’s action arising from a motor vehicle collision with a cow on a roadway, the municipal defendants sought costs.

The plaintiff had alleged that the cow’s owner failed to confine the animal and that the municipalities failed to ensure proper confinement on private land.

After reviewing written submissions and the factors under Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court determined a reasonable and fair cost award.

Emphasizing that cost awards should reflect what is fair and reasonable for the unsuccessful party to pay, the court ordered a modest all‑inclusive amount.

The moving municipal defendants brought a Rule 21 motion to strike a negligence claim arising from a motor vehicle collision with a cow on a public roadway.

The plaintiff alleged that the municipalities failed to ensure that the cow’s owner properly secured the animal on private property.

The court held that the pleaded duty of care had never been recognized in law and that there was insufficient proximity between the plaintiff and the municipalities to ground such a duty.

The court further found strong policy reasons against imposing municipal liability for monitoring privately owned animals or fencing.

The claim and a related cross‑claim against the municipalities were dismissed.

The plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident when he collided with a cow on a county road.

He sued the owner of the cow and the municipalities, alleging the municipalities failed to ensure the owner properly secured the cow on her private land.

The municipalities brought a Rule 21 motion to strike the claim against them.

The court granted the motion, finding no recognized duty of care, insufficient proximity, and broad policy considerations against making municipalities insurers for escaped animals.

The claim and cross-claim against the municipalities were dismissed.