Injured by a Farm Animal in Minnesota? Why the Owner's Knowledge of That Particular Animal Often Decides the Case

The Facts

What happened

Jewel Eskew worked as a farmhand on Darrell Luhmann's dairy farm from July 2021 to March 2022. He had prior experience working with cattle, including years on a beef-cattle farm, and testified that he was aware working with cows carried risks. One day, filling in for an absent co-worker, he went to feed the cows and noticed a newborn calf standing apart with one cow. Part of his job was to determine which cow had calved, so — viewing his account in the light most favorable to him, as the court did — he entered the pen and walked around the cow. It turned out that cow was not the calf's mother.

As Eskew passed, the cow rammed him repeatedly, slamming him into a wall and knocking him to the ground. The attack lasted about five minutes, ending only when a farm dog ran over and distracted the animal. During the attack, Eskew tried to call Luhmann for help several times, including leaving a voicemail, and yelled for help. His injuries were severe: he broke all but one of his ribs, suffered a collapsed lung, needed extensive surgery, and experienced lasting complications, including chronic lymphedema. He and his wife sued for negligence and loss of consortium.

Both men testified in their depositions that they were unaware of any cow on the farm ever causing trouble or acting violently.

The Decision

What the court held

The Court of Appeals, in an opinion authored by Judge Bentley, affirmed summary judgment for the farm owner, upholding the Olmsted County District Court. See Eskew v. Luhmann, No. A25-0813 (Minn. Ct. App. Mar. 2, 2026). This opinion is nonprecedential. It is not binding authority, although it may be cited for persuasive value as permitted by Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c). (The court assumed, without deciding, that Eskew was an employee rather than an independent contractor.)

Minnesota recognizes two ways to recover for an injury caused by a domestic animal, and the court held that neither was supported by the record here:

• "Scienter" (knowledge) claim. An animal's keeper is liable if the animal had a vicious propensity and the keeper had notice of it. The court held there was no evidence that this cow had ever been aggressive or that Luhmann knew of any dangerous tendency — both men testified they had never known any of the farm's cows to cause trouble. General statements that "working with cattle is dangerous" were not enough, because the law asks whether the owner knew this animal had a disposition different from cows generally.
• Common-law negligence. Eskew argued Luhmann had a duty to warn him about entering a pen alone and a duty to answer the phone during the attack. The court rejected both. An employer's duty to warn about an animal generally depends on prior notice of the animal's vicious propensity or on "special circumstances" that would put a prudent employer on guard. The court noted that examples of such special circumstances from earlier cases — an owner who knew his horse had a sore that could make it kick, or owners who left a horse corral in the care of an inexperienced babysitter — had no parallel here. And, significantly, the cow that attacked Eskew had not given birth to the nearby calf, so even a "cow protecting its calf" theory did not fit the facts. As for the phone, the court held that because the attack was not objectively reasonable to expect, Luhmann had no legal duty to answer during those five minutes.

The court did not decide whether "negligent training" is a valid claim in Minnesota or whether Eskew assumed the risk of injury; it resolved the case without reaching those questions.

Practical Takeaways

What this means for Minnesota injury claims

Animal-injury cases involving livestock in Minnesota often turn on a single question: did the owner know, or have specific reason to know, that this particular animal was dangerous? That is very different from dog-bite cases, where Minnesota's dog-bite statute imposes broader liability on owners. For other domestic animals — cows, horses, and the like — an injured person usually must prove the owner's knowledge of a dangerous propensity, or unusual "special circumstances" that should have alerted the owner.

That makes early investigation important. The following often matter and should be investigated:

• Prior incidents or complaints involving the specific animal — past aggression is the most common way knowledge is proven.
• The animal's known temperament and history, including any reason the owner had to apprehend danger even without a prior attack (for example, a known injury or condition).
• Unusual circumstances at the time of the injury — such as a person placed around an animal despite lacking relevant experience, or an animal known to be protective in a particular situation.

Because the facts that matter in these cases are specific and are not always obvious at the outset, careful evaluation of the record can be the difference between a claim that is viable and one that is dismissed.

Related reading from Andrade Law:

• how the dog-bite statute imposes broader liability on owners
• the owner-knowledge and notice elements that drive premises-liability claims
• our case note on Odegaard v. 610 MOB Partners, where a winter slip-and-fall claim failed for lack of notice evidence

Case Information

Case information