Therefore, the court did not abuse its discretion in deciding the gates were necessary to control the livestock. Rupert, 31 Wn. App. at 32. On the other hand, the gates were quite difficult to open and hazardous in certain conditions to operate. Double L intimidated the Lowes and once physically blocked their access. From these facts, the trial court did not abuse its equitable discretion in deciding Double L had acted unreasonably at times and that the gates, albeit necessary for livestock control, needed modification to allow the imposed use, ingress and egress. Id. Mr. Lowe, relying on out-of-state authorities, extensively argued here and below that cattle guards would be a less restrictive alternative to gates. See, e.g., Craig v. Kennedy, 202 Va. 654, 119 S.E.2d 320, 322 (1961) (<HOLDING>). Although the trial court ordered a cattle
holding that plaintiff whose truck was demolished in an accident could not recover lost profits unless he could show that he could not obtain a suitable substitute vehicle holding that the oklahoma supreme court under due process principles could not order the reinvestigation of an attorney disciplinary grievance but also noting that the board of governors of the state bar could review the matter holding that a plaintiff who did not replace a destroyed tractortrailer due to lack of funds and failure to find a suitable replacement could recover for loss of use of the vehicle limited to a reasonable time holding servient landowner could install unlocked gate but dominant owner could also replace gate with cattle guard holding that such damages could be recovered but only if the plaintiffs were experienced in the business and if the lost profits could be ascertained with some certainty