Step-by-step checklist
Identify
Hands off until the expert arrives. Nothing at the scene gets touched, moved, repaired, or thrown out until the origin and cause investigator has secured it. Evidence that's moved early can sink the whole recovery.
Notify
Investigate
Demand
Negotiate
Settle
Opening a claim can open one against your insured. When you set up a claim with the livestock owner's carrier, the owner may file their own claim against your insured for the animal, which is their property. If you aren't certain of the liability split, like speed, night driving, or a posted livestock warning sign, slow down and talk with your client first. In contributory negligence states, any fault by your insured can block the recovery entirely. In comparative fault states, the owner's carrier can pursue your insured for their share. Check the state's fault rule on the State Rules page.
Open range or closed range: what it means
- Closed range (fence-in): the owner has to keep livestock contained. An animal loose on the road is a problem the owner has to explain.
- Open range (fence-out): livestock may roam, and drivers take the risk of hitting them. The owner usually isn't responsible just because the animal was on the road.
- Mixed: open range is the default, but there are pockets of closed range, like herd districts, county stock laws, city limits, or highways fenced on both sides. The answer depends on exactly where the animal was hit.
Even in open range, an owner who was careless in other ways, like a known broken fence, repeated escapes, or turning animals out onto a fenced highway, may still be responsible. Get the facts before you close a file.
Where it matters: open range and mixed states
These are the states where you have to check the exact spot before you pursue the owner.
| State | Rule | When it applies | Cite |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alaska ⚠️ | Open range | Outside controlled livestock districts, there is no statewide statute found requiring owners to keep livestock contained. Inside a controlled livestock district, animals may not run at large and owners are liable for damage they cause. | Alaska Stat. § 03.35.010 |
| Arizona | Open range | Arizona is fence-out: livestock may lawfully roam in open range areas and landowners must fence them out. The exceptions are no-fence districts and incorporated cities and towns, where livestock may not run at large. | Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 3-1421 to 3-1429 |
| California | Mixed | Owners may not intentionally or negligently let livestock onto a highway that is fenced on both sides. Some counties (e.g., Siskiyou, Modoc, Lassen, parts of Trinity and Shasta) are designated open range, but owners there still must use ordinary care. | Cal. Food & Agric. Code § 16902 |
| Colorado ⚠️ | Open range | Colorado is fence-out: landowners must fence livestock out. But owners may not knowingly let livestock graze or roam on a road or highway that is separated from their range by a fence or other barrier, and a driver who hits livestock there is not liable unless malicious, willful, or wanton. | Colo. Rev. Stat. § 35-46-105 |
| Idaho | Open range | On open range (unfenced land outside cities, villages and herd districts), owners have no duty to keep livestock off highways and are not liable for collision damage. Inside cities or herd districts, owners must keep animals from running at large and can be liable. | Idaho Code §§ 25-2118 and 25-2401 to 25-2408 |
| Louisiana ⚠️ | Mixed | Owners may not knowingly, willfully or negligently let livestock go at large on the state highways listed in the statute, or on public roads in parishes or wards that adopted a stock law. Elsewhere the rule depends on local law. | La. R.S. 3:2803 |
| Mississippi ⚠️ | Mixed | A statewide stock law requires owners to keep livestock confined, but a county can vote itself out (hogs may never run loose). Separately, on federal and state paved highways, an owner whose negligence lets livestock onto the road or right-of-way is liable for wrecks, injuries and deaths. | Miss. Code Ann. §§ 69-13-1 and 69-13-111 |
| Montana | Mixed | Montana is open range by default, and owners have no duty to keep livestock off roads and are not liable for collisions unless grossly negligent or intentional. That protection does not apply on highways covered by § 60-7-201 (designated interstate/fenced and federal-aid primary routes), and herd districts prohibit animals running at large. | Mont. Code Ann. §§ 27-1-724 and 60-7-201 |
| Nevada | Open range | On open range, owners have no duty to keep livestock off highways crossing that range and are not liable for collisions. The exception is a fenced highway right-of-way: an owner who negligently lets an animal onto a fenced right-of-way is liable. | Nev. Rev. Stat. § 568.360 |
| New Mexico ⚠️ | Mixed | Open range is the general rule, so owners grazing unfenced pasture that a road crosses usually have no duty to fence the road. But owners may not negligently let livestock wander onto highways the state has fenced, and livestock may not run at large on roads inside herd law districts. | N.M. Stat. Ann. §§ 66-7-363 and 77-12-11 |
| North Dakota ⚠️ | Mixed | Livestock may not run at large statewide, except in county-designated grazing areas. Inside a grazing area, owners are not liable for vehicle damage or injuries on public highways marked with the required warning signs. | N.D. Cent. Code § 36-11-01 |
| Oregon | Mixed | Open range is the default, and owners are not liable when livestock wander onto roads in open range, even interstates. Inside county livestock districts, and on a few named highways, livestock may not run at large; on interstates only intentionally placing livestock in the right-of-way is barred. | ORS 607.044, 607.045, and 607.505 |
| Texas | Mixed | Texas is open range by default, so owners generally have no duty to keep livestock off roads. The exceptions are U.S. and state highways, where owners may not knowingly let livestock roam unattended on the right-of-way, and counties or areas that have adopted a local stock law; farm-to-market roads stay open range unless a local stock law covers them. | Tex. Agric. Code § 143.102 |
| Utah | Mixed | Owners may not willfully or negligently let livestock stray onto a highway that is fenced on both sides, but open range livestock drifting onto a road while moving to or from their usual range are exempt. Since May 2025, in a collision with open range livestock the driver is presumed at fault (rebuttable), and livestock damages are limited to replacement cost; on fenced highways there is no presumption either way. | Utah Code Ann. § 41-6a-407 |
| Virginia ⚠️ | Mixed | Virginia's default is fence-out, but counties (or districts within them) can adopt a no-fence ordinance making property lines a lawful fence, and there owners must keep livestock from running at large beyond their land; many counties, especially in the east, have done so. Check the county ordinance for the loss location; outside any ordinance, ordinary negligence may still apply. | Va. Code Ann. § 55.1-2820 |
| Washington ⚠️ | Mixed | Counties designate stock restricted areas; everywhere else is range area where cattle, horses, mules, and donkeys may roam. In a stock restricted area, owners may not willfully or negligently let livestock run at large or stray unattended onto a highway right-of-way. Even in range areas, an owner who is careless (known bad fence, repeated escapes) may still face a negligence claim. | Wash. Rev. Code § 16.24.065 |
| Wyoming | Mixed | Wyoming is a fence-out state, so livestock generally may roam and landowners must fence them out; in signed open range, drivers bear the risk of hitting livestock. The exception is fenced public highways, where livestock may not run at large (except animals drifting to or from their usual range), and violators must pay all damages caused. | Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 11-24-108 |
Utah heads-up: since May 2025, when a vehicle hits open range livestock in Utah, the driver is presumed at fault, and livestock damages are limited to replacement cost.
Closed range states
In these states the owner has a duty to keep livestock contained. That's where the notice letter does the most good.
| State | Rule | When it applies | Cite |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | Closed range | Statewide, owners may not let livestock run at large on public roads or other people's land. But for car crashes, the owner is only liable if they knowingly or willfully put the animal on the road; carelessness alone is not enough. | Ala. Code § 3-5-2 |
| Arkansas ⚠️ | Closed range | Since Act 594 of 2023, it is unlawful statewide for livestock to run at large (before that, the ban applied only where adopted locally). State police and sheriffs impound livestock found on public highways. | Ark. Code Ann. § 2-38-301 |
| Connecticut | Closed range | Statewide, owners and keepers may not let livestock roam at large on another's land or on any public highway. A knowing repeat violation within a year that causes injury carries criminal penalties. | Conn. Gen. Stat. § 22-364 |
| Delaware | Closed range | Statewide, it is unlawful to let livestock run at large on public highways or unenclosed land. Farms earning 25% or more of annual income from livestock sales are liable for an accidental escape only if negligent. | Del. Code Ann. tit. 3, § 7701 |
| Florida | Closed range | Florida has a uniform statewide livestock law with no open range exceptions; local laws cannot allow livestock on public highways. Owners are liable if they intentionally, willfully, carelessly, or negligently let livestock run at large or stray on public roads. | Fla. Stat. §§ 588.12-588.15 |
| Georgia | Closed range | Statewide, owners may not let livestock run at large on or stray onto public roads or other people's property without permission. Owners who show they kept fences and gates in good repair and checked them can defeat a claim. | O.C.G.A. § 4-3-3 |
| Hawaii ⚠️ | Closed range | Hawaii has no open range law. Owners pay for damage their animals cause when they wander onto other people's land, fenced or not, and loose animals on fenced public roads can be impounded at the owner's cost. Motorist claims fall under the general animal-owner liability statute and ordinary negligence. | Haw. Rev. Stat. § 663-9 |
| Illinois | Closed range | Statewide, owners may not let livestock run at large and are liable for damage they cause. The owner escapes liability only by proving they did not know the animal was out and used reasonable care to keep it in. | 510 ILCS 55/1 |
| Indiana ⚠️ | Closed range | Statewide, it is a crime to knowingly or intentionally let livestock run at large; owners using cattle guards under the related statute are exempt. Civil claims after a road collision still require showing the owner was careless or knew or should have known the animal was out. | Ind. Code § 15-17-18-8 |
| Iowa ⚠️ | Closed range | Iowa repealed its statewide 'running at large' statute in 1994, but owners still have a common-law duty to use ordinary care to keep cattle off highways; some counties have their own at-large ordinances. The animal simply being on the road no longer proves negligence. | Iowa Code ch. 169C; Singh v. McDermott (Iowa 2024) |
| Kansas | Closed range | Statewide, it is unlawful for livestock to run at large. A motorist must still show the animal was loose because the owner failed to use reasonable care in keeping it enclosed. | K.S.A. 47-122 |
| Kentucky | Closed range | Statewide, owners may not let cattle run at large and are liable for resulting damage. An animal on the highway creates a presumption the owner was negligent, which the owner can rebut by showing good fences and secured gates. | KRS 259.210 |
| Maine ⚠️ | Closed range | Owners may not let animals trespass on others' land, and the statute covers animals found unattended on any local, county or state road. Penalties mainly apply after the owner is notified; civil damage claims generally require negligence. | 7 M.R.S. § 4041 |
| Maryland ⚠️ | Closed range | Maryland follows the common-law rule that owners must fence their livestock in. A motorist must show the owner failed to act as a reasonable person would in keeping the animals contained; some counties add their own rules. | Common law, no statute |
| Massachusetts ⚠️ | Closed range | Livestock found loose on public roads may be taken up and impounded anywhere in the state, and owners answer for damage their animals do. For a car crash, the driver usually has to show the owner was careless in keeping the animal in. | Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 49, §§ 24 and 29 |
| Michigan | Closed range | Statewide, an animal may not run at large and owners may not let it; violation is a misdemeanor. For injuries in a crash, the driver still has to prove the owner was careless; breaking the statute only lets a jury infer negligence. | Mich. Comp. Laws § 433.12 |
| Minnesota | Closed range | Statewide, owners may not permit cattle, horses, sheep, pigs, goats and similar animals to run at large; an animal wandering onto a highway counts as running at large. The owner is only in violation if they 'permitted' the escape, so a mere escape without owner fault is not enough. | Minn. Stat. § 346.16 |
| Missouri ⚠️ | Closed range | Owners may not let horses, mules, cattle, swine, sheep or goats run at large outside their enclosure. For a road accident, the owner escapes liability only by proving the animal got out through no fault or negligence of the owner. | Mo. Rev. Stat. § 270.010 |
| Nebraska ⚠️ | Closed range | Owners are responsible for damage their livestock do on other people's land. For highway collisions, the driver must prove the owner was negligent under ordinary negligence rules; the fact that the animal escaped is not by itself evidence of negligence (2001 law overturning Roberts v. Weber & Sons). | Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 54-401 and 25-21,274 |
| New Hampshire ⚠️ | Closed range | Owners may not knowingly, recklessly or negligently let livestock onto others' improved or enclosed land, and specific rules bar letting bulls, stallions and rams run at large. No general highway statute found; a crash claim would rest on ordinary negligence. | N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 635:3 |
| New Jersey ⚠️ | Closed range | Livestock found loose on streets or highways can be taken to the public pound. No statute directly addressing crash liability was found, so a claim against the owner would rest on ordinary negligence in keeping the animal contained. | N.J. Stat. Ann. § 4:21-1 |
| New York ⚠️ | Closed range | Statewide, owners must use reasonable care to keep farm animals from straying onto roads. Towns can also pass their own running-at-large ordinances. | Hastings v. Sauve, 21 N.Y.3d 122 (2013) |
| North Carolina | Closed range | Statewide, it is a misdemeanor to let livestock run at large. A driver who hits livestock still must show the owner failed to use reasonable care to keep the animals in. | N.C. Gen. Stat. § 68-16 |
| Ohio | Closed range | Statewide, owners of horses, cattle, sheep, goats, swine, llamas, alpacas, poultry and similar animals may not let them run at large on public roads. An animal found at large is prima facie evidence the owner was negligent. | Ohio Rev. Code § 951.02 |
| Oklahoma | Closed range | Statewide, domestic animals must be restrained at all times; the old open range county provisions were repealed in 1966. For highway collisions the driver must still prove the escape resulted from the owner's negligence or intentional act. | Okla. Stat. tit. 4, § 98 |
| Pennsylvania ⚠️ | Closed range | Statewide, owners must use reasonable care to keep domestic animals confined and off roads. A statute separately bars breeding males from running at large on highways. | Bender v. Welsh, 344 Pa. 392 (1942) |
| Rhode Island ⚠️ | Closed range | Statewide, horses, bulls, boars, rams and goats may not run at large, and animals grazing on highways are treated as at large and may be impounded. | R.I. Gen. Laws § 4-14-1 |
| South Carolina | Closed range | Statewide, owners may not let livestock run at large beyond their own land. Strict liability applies to trespass on private land, but highway collisions require proof of negligence. | S.C. Code Ann. § 47-7-110 |
| South Dakota ⚠️ | Closed range | Owners have a common law duty of ordinary care to keep livestock off highways when they should reasonably foresee that loose animals could cause a crash. Courts look at the type of road, how much traffic it carries, the time of day, and whether the owner knew the animals were likely to get onto the road. | Eixenberger v. Belle Fourche Livestock Exchange, 58 N.W.2d 235 (S.D. 1953) |
| Tennessee | Closed range | Statewide, it is unlawful for an owner to willfully allow livestock to run at large. A mere escape is not enough; the owner must have knowingly or carelessly let the animals get out, for example by failing to keep up an adequate fence. | Tenn. Code Ann. § 44-8-401 |
| Vermont | Closed range | Statewide, it is unlawful to knowingly allow cattle, horses, sheep, goats, or swine to run at large on a public highway without the selectboard's consent. Liability in a crash rests on the person who owns, manages, or controls the animal, not a landlord who merely rents out the pasture. | 20 V.S.A. § 3341 |
| West Virginia ⚠️ | Closed range | Since the 2013 rewrite, owners must keep livestock in a fence that reasonably prevents escape and are liable when their livestock enter another's property without consent. The current statutes do not specifically address public roads (the old road right-of-way provision was repealed), so a road collision claim rests on ordinary negligence. | W. Va. Code § 19-18-1 |
| Wisconsin ⚠️ | Closed range | Wisconsin is not an open range state: owners are expected to fence and keep livestock off roads, and a careless owner can be sued for negligence. For certain male breeding animals running at large, the owner is liable for all damage regardless of fault. | Wis. Stat. § 172.01 |
⚠️ means the research found the rule but couldn't confirm every detail, such as a leading case or the current county list. Always open the linked statute and confirm it's current before you cite it. This list is a starting point, not legal advice.
Letters for this loss
| Step | Letter | Sent to |
|---|---|---|
| Notify | Livestock Owner Notice and Insurance Request | Livestock owner |
| Demand | Subrogation Demand to Adverse Carrier | Owner's farm, ranch, or homeowner's carrier |
| Demand | Subrogation Demand to Responsible Party | Owner, if uninsured |
| Negotiate | Second Demand with Escalation Notice | Whoever didn't respond |
| Settle | Deductible Reimbursement Letter to Insured | Insured |