See Gardner v. Black, 217 N.C. 573, 9 S.E.2d 10, 11 (1940). To recover on the s recognize that they owe a duty to take reasonable steps to prevent their animals from running at large; however, they argue that they did not breach this duty. The Poes do not dispute that the Lollars sustained loss or injury as a result of Ms. Lollar’s collision with their horse on the state highway. The Lollars’ evidence that the Poes knew that one of their horses had gotten out of the pasture on prior occasions creates a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the Poes had negligently failed to take reasonable steps to prevent the horse from escaping and running at large. A review of cases from other jurisdictions supports this holding. See Oliver v. Jones, 239 Ark. 572, 393 S.W.2d 248 (1965) (<HOLDING>); Woolstrum v. Mailloux, 141 Cal.App.3d Supp.
holding that complaint on appeal must be the same as that presented in the trial court holding a defendant was entitled to a directed verdict when none of the evidence presented by the state placed the defendant at the crime scene and the jury was left to speculate as to the defendants guilt holding that the burden is on the plaintiff holding that at the summary judgment stage there must be sufficient evidence on which the jury could find for the plaintiff holding that the plaintiff who sustained damages when his automobile collided with a calf owned by the defendant presented sufficient evidence that the owner was negligent in allowing a calf to be on highway to take the case to the jury on the issue of negligence where the plaintiff presented evidence that others on earlier occasions had seen the owners cattle on the highway at or near the place of the mishap