of negligence, the Lol-lars must establish that the defendants owed a duty of care to them, that the defendants breached that duty, that the Lollars suffered loss or injury, and that the defendants’ negligence was the actual and proximate cause of that loss or injury. John R. Cowley & Bros., Inc. v. Brown, 569 So.2d 375 (Ala.1990). The prohibitions of § 4-20(a) impose a duty on persons “having charge, custody or control of any livestock, rabbit or fowl” to take reasonable steps to prevent their animals from running at large. The degree of care required of an animal owner should be commensurate with the propensities of the particular animal and with the place where the animals are kept, including its proximity to high-speed highways. Wilkins v. Johnson, 595 So.2d 466, 468 (Ala.1992) (<HOLDING>); Byram v. Main, 523 A.2d 1387 (Me.1987). The
holding that a landlord has a duty of reasonable care over common areas or other areas over which the landlord has retained control holding that standard of care need not be listed separately in report when same standard applies to each health care provider holding that purchasers of relatively inexpensive products should be held to a lesser standard of purchasing care recognizing that a defendant physicians own practice was at least some evidence of the standard of care and concluding that the case was properly submitted to the jury notwithstanding the plaintiffs failure to call an independent expert on the standard of care holding that those who own livestock within populous areas near municipalities should be held to a higher standard of care in preventing that livestock from endangering other citizens