livestock

Ohio Legislature revises law for livestock running loose

New law establishes clear standards for liability, adds alpacas, llamas and bison

Livestock owners and keepers in Ohio will soon have less risk of automatic liability when their animals escape enclosures and run loose on public roadways or the property of others.   The Ohio legislature has revised the “animals running at large” law to clarify two different standards for criminal and civil liability under the law.  

Criminal liability will occur only when proven that a livestock operator behaved “recklessly” in allowing the animals to run loose.  Under Ohio law, a person behaves recklessly when he or she perversely disregards a known risk of his or her conduct, with heedless indifference to the consequences of that conduct.   For example, a livestock owner who sees but intentionally ignores a downed fence where cattle graze near a roadway could be deemed “reckless.”  

The new law establishes a different standard of liability for a civil situation.  A person may recover damages against a livestock owner if harm resulted because the livestock owner’s “negligence” caused the animals to escape.  Under Ohio law, negligence is a substantial lapse of “due care” that results in a failure to perceive or avoid a risk.  For example, a livestock owner who has not checked the line fences in a grazing area for several years could be deemed “negligent.”

Additionally, the revised law states that an animal being at large creates an initial presumption of negligence by the owner.  The animal owner must then rebut the presumption by proving that he or she exercised due care.

The revised law should address a growing problem in Ohio, where livestock owners have been held automatically liable when their animals are found running at large–regardless of  the reason for the animals’ escape or any actions taken or not taken by the owner.  This problem has occurred most frequently with criminal prosecutions.  Owners of escaped animals have been assessed automatic criminal penalties, without having an opportunity to explain their management practices or present facts about the animals’ escape.  The new law remedies this problem by clarifying that criminal liability is not “automatic” simply because livestock are loose; there must be proof that the owner was reckless.

In addition to addressing the standards for liability, the revised animals at large law also:

  • Adds llamas, alpacas and bison to the list of animals addressed in the liability provisions, which already included horses, mules, cattle, sheep, goats, swine and geese.
  • Also adds llamas, alpacas and bison to the law’s provisions for taking, confinement and care of animals running at large.
  • Removes a separate liability provision for male breeding animals; male breeding animals will now fall under the same liability section of the law as other animals.
  • Revises a similar civil liability provision for livestock in Ohio’s line fence law to clarify that negligence is the requisite standard of liability under that law.

The governor signed H.B. 22 on June 21, 2011; the law takes effect on September 20, 2011.  View H.B. 22 here.

ODA Denies Egg Farm Permit as Legislation Proposes Change to Permit Program

Current bill in House would yield different outcome for Hi-Q CAFF permit

In a unique and controversial case, the Ohio Department of Agriculture (ODA) has denied an application under its Livestock Environmental Permitting Program for Hi-Q Egg Products, LLC to establish an egg laying facility in Union County.   In denying the application, ODA Director Zehringer followed the recommendations made in April 2011 by the ODA hearing officer who reviewed the permit application (see our earlier post).  The hearing officer had recommended denial on the basis of an incomplete application, because  Hi-Q’s application did not include a written statement from local officials certifying that final recommendations had been made for local infrastructure improvements and costs, as required by program regulations (OAC 901:10-1-02(A)(6)).  Hi-Q claimed that the county and township failed to provide the recommendations, while the county and township argued that there were no final recommendations because  Hi-Q refused to discuss an alternative transportation route.  In agreeing that the recommendations were not included in the application, Director Zehringer stated that there was “no other viable option but to deny the [permit] due to an incomplete application.” 

Ohio’s  Livestock Environmental Permitting Program (LEPP) regulates the installation and operation of  large Confined Animal Feeding Facilities (CAFFs).  Critics have long complained that the program fails to consider the potential impacts of CAFF development  upon the local community.  Those concerned about local impacts have used the public hearing process to voice opposition to CAFF permits, but have never successfully prevented approval of a permit.  Until now, the program’s obscure requirement for county and township approval of infrastructure improvements has gone unnoticed as a prevention mechanism by such opponents.   

While the Hi-Q denial is a first, opponents of large livestock operations won’t have cause to celebrate the decision for long if a current legislative proposal meets with success.  H.B. 229, introduced May 17, 2011 by Rep. Buchy, will place a time limit on the county and township officials who must consider local infrastructure improvements needed for a CAFF permit application.  According to the proposal,  local officials would have 75 days after receiving notice of the proposed facility to render a written statement on local infrastructure improvements and costs.  After 75 days, the permit applicant may submit a notarized affidavit stating that it had provided local officials with notice but did not receive any written final recommendations from the local government within the required timeframe.  Under the law as proposed by H.B. 229, ODA could not deny a permit application that lacks the written statement from local officials as long as 75 days have passed after giving notice and the permit applicant submits the notarized affidavit rather than the written statement from local officials. 

H.B. 229 is currently before the House Agriculture and Natural Resources committee.  Visit this link to view H.B. 229 and here for Director Zehringer’s press release on the Hi-Q permit.

Undercover Videos on the Farm: Legal Issues

Ohio livetock farms have been a target of animal welfare organizations, evidenced by recent releases of undercover videos taken at  Buckeye Veal Services and Conklin Dairy Farm and the broadcast of the ”Death on a Factory Farm” documentary.   The strategy is to gain employment or access to the farm, videotape without the knowledge or permission of the farm owner, and later release video suggesting that the farm mistreats its livestock.   This approach has heightened the visibility of farm animal welfare issues in Ohio, but the strategy and its impacts raise many legal issues.  A presentation I recently prepared for the Ohio Agricultural Law Symposium highlights research we’re conducting at OSU to identify the legal issues and implications of the undercover video approach.  Below is synopsis of a few of the more controversial legal issues.

  • Ohio’s penalty structure for animal cruelty.    At least one animal welfare organization claims that it has targeted Ohio for undercover investigations because Ohio is one of the few remaining states that limits animal cruelty punishment to misdemeanor penalties (with the exception of a repeated offense against “companion animals,” which is a fifth degree felony).   Most states have adopted a felony penalty structure for acts of animal cruelty, which results in more severe punishment.  Ohio legislators have made nearly a dozen attempts to increase penalties for animal cruelty, most recently with H.B. 55 (see our earlier post).    The proposals always fail, allegedly due to an effective lobbying effort from groups who argue that penalties for cruelty to animals in Ohio should not be higher than those for abuse of humans.  While undercover video releases don’t appear to be moving felony penalty legislation forward currently, they could be garnering public support for a future proposal.  Should Ohio adopt a felony penalty, and if it does, will undercover investigations find a new state target?
  • Duty to report animal abuse.   The videographer of the Conklin Dairy Farm video witnessed acts of mistreatment against animals by an employee for approximately one month before the organization released the videos.  Many argue that the videographer should have reported the abuse right away, but neither Ohio or any other state has a law requiring an ordinary person to report animal cruelty.  Fifteen states have laws mandating that veterinarians report suspected animal cruelty: Ohio does not.  Another 13 states have “voluntary” reporting laws for veterinarians, which grant a veterinarian immunity and a waiver of client confidentiality upon reporting abuse, but not Ohio.  Ohio does have several mechanisms a person could use to initiate an investigation of suspected animal cruelty through local law enforcement or the county humane society.  In a similar vein, should livestock farms have an employment policy requiring employees to report incidents of animal mismanagement and abuse by other employees?
  • Who’s committing the crime?   The person committing the act against an animal is the obvious offender, but what about the videographer and the employer?  Circumstances may exist such that the videographer was a legal “accomplice” to the crime.  Under Ohio law, a person can be prosecuted as an accomplice  if the person solicited another to commit a criminal offense; aided, abetted or conspired with another in committing the offense;  or caused an innocent or irresponsible person to commit the offense, and also shared in the intent to commit the crime.    Likewise, it may be possible to prove that a videographer acted with “recklessness” by observing and taping the crime or by encouraging and interacting with the offender; recklessness is the required mental state for an animal cruelty violation.  As for the employer, Ohio’s humane society law clarifies that a conviction of an employee for animal cruelty does not prevent the prosecution of the employer for “allowing a state of facts to exist which will induce cruelty to animals” by the employee. 

These are only a few of the issues surfacing from the undercover video strategy.  Given the current climate of continued attempts to “out” livestock farmers and push the farm animal welfare issue in Ohio, perhaps it’s time we begin finding solutions to the issues.

 

Ohio’s “animals running at large” law may see revision

Bill introduced in Ohio House of Representatives to clarify liability standards

A recurring problem around Ohio may be resolved if H.B. 503 progresses through the General Assembly before the end of the year.  Representatives Bubp (R-88th Dist.) and Garrison (D-93rd Dist.) recently introduced the bill to revise Ohio’s animals at large law.  The proposal clarifies the standards for civil and criminal liability under the law.

The animals running at large law, found in Ohio Revised Code Chapter 951, states that no owner or keeper of  horses, mules, cattle, sheep, goats, swine, or geese “shall permit” the animals to run at large on public roads or outside of their enclosures.   Many law officers, prosecutors and judges have interpreted the word “shall” as a trigger for automatic liability–if an animal is out, the owner is liable.    But in a case before the Ohio Supreme Court, the court stated that the law does not establish automatic liability.  The court explained that the law creates the duty to exercise ordinary care to keep animals from running at large and sets up a “rebuttable presumption” of liability.   An animal owner whose animals are found running at large has the opportunity to rebut the presumption of liability and prove that he or she exercised ordinary care to contain the animals.  Despite the Supreme Court opinion, animal owners have continued to be subject to prosecution under an automatic liability standard.

H.B. 503 removes the possibility of interpreting the animals at large law as a strict liability law and lays out two different standards for civil and criminal liability.  An owner or keeper of animals who “negligently” permits animals to run at large is liable for all damages caused by the animal, and an owner or keeper who “recklessly” permits animals to run at large is guilty of a fourth degree criminal misdemeanor.  Under Ohio law, “negligence” is the failure to exercise ordinary care, while “recklessness” is acting with indifference to consequences and with disregard to a known risk.

H.B. 503 would alleviate the problems many animal owners in Ohio have faced–potential criminal liability when natural disasters, vandals, pranksters or neighbor disputes, rather than the owner’s action or inaction, caused the release of the animals.   A disturbing increase in such incidents led the Ohio State Bar Association and its Agricultural Law Committee to work with H.B. 503 sponsors to develop the revisions.  View H.B. 503 here.