## Facts

- A semi-trailer truck owned by McLaughlin Freight Lines, Inc. struck several cattle on a Nebraska highway.
- The cattle belonged to Marvin Gentrup and had escaped from a holding pen.
- McLaughlin sued Gentrup for property damage to the truck, relying solely on res ipsa loquitur to infer negligence.
- McLaughlin offered circumstantial evidence beyond mere escape, including information about the pen’s design, construction, and long-term use (since about 1993), and the circumstances suggesting an escape would not ordinarily occur if properly secured and maintained.
- Gentrup sought summary judgment, arguing res ipsa loquitur could not be satisfied and that Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-21,274 barred an inference of negligence from escaped livestock.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Gentrup and dismissed the action.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence created a genuine issue of material fact under the common-law doctrine of res ipsa loquitur sufficient to defeat summary judgment.
2. Whether Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-21,274 (providing that escaped livestock, standing alone, is insufficient to raise an inference of negligence) prevents application of res ipsa loquitur in livestock-escape cases.

## Decision

- The Nebraska Supreme Court reversed the summary judgment and remanded.
- The court held that, viewing the record most favorably to McLaughlin, a fact finder could reasonably infer the res ipsa loquitur elements were met, making summary judgment improper.
- The court held § 25-21,274 did not bar the claim because McLaughlin relied on evidence in addition to the cattle’s escape; the statute limits “mere escape” inferences but does not eliminate res ipsa loquitur when additional circumstances are shown.

## Legal Principles

- Summary judgment is proper only when the material facts are undisputed and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; evidence and reasonable inferences are viewed in favor of the nonmovant.
- Res ipsa loquitur permits (but does not require) a fact finder to infer negligence when:  
  - the event would not ordinarily occur absent negligence,  
  - the instrumentality was under the defendant’s exclusive control, and  
  - the defendant lacks an explanation sufficient to negate negligence as a matter of law.
- Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-21,274 bars an inference of negligence from escaped livestock “standing alone,” but does not foreclose negligence inferences based on additional circumstantial evidence, including through res ipsa loquitur.
- When reasonable minds could differ on whether res ipsa loquitur’s foundational elements are satisfied, the inference question is for the trier of fact rather than resolution on summary judgment.

## Conclusion

The court reinstated the property-damage action, holding that the record permitted a reasonable inference of negligence under res ipsa loquitur and that the “standing alone” livestock-escape statute did not eliminate the doctrine where the plaintiff presented additional evidence supporting negligence.


McLaughlin Freight Lines, Inc. v. Gentrup, 281 Neb. 725 (Neb. 2011)