I don't know here. The farmer admitted that he leased (lives some forty miles away) the land on which the cattle were ranged and that that property was fenced to keep the cattle in eventhough the fence appeared to have failed due to lack of maintenance by the current property owner. It was also stated that the farmer/rancher had responsibility to see that his cattle remained on that land which if fenced was not consicered to be free range. The cattle moved onto the free range due to a breach in the fence. UP may have a shot at a preliminary hearing to use this as a premise to get the case dismissed. If so they may not have to eat(so to speak) the cost of settlement or huge attorneys fees and court costs. I'll leave this to the attorney want to be's to hash this one out.
:)