In New York, lawsuits involving injuries caused by domestic animals are decided by applying a theory of strict liability. The suing party must demonstrate that the owner of the animal was aware of the animal's tendencies to act dangerously. In 2007, Karen Hastings was driving her car down a road at 1:30 a.m. when she crashed her car into a cow that had wandered onto the dark road from Laurier Sauve's property. Hastings argued that an owner should be liable for a large animal escaping from its enclosure because there should be negligence claims available to injured persons affected by the wandering animals. Even if the animals aren't vicious, she pointed out that they were still dangerous when roaming free, seeing as she could not see the large animal on the dark road when she was driving in the middle of the night. The defendant argued that Hastings must prove that he was aware that the animal had a tendency or an inclination to cause harm to others, which he believed she couldn't. How did the court decide? Hastings v. Sauve 2012 NY Slip Op 02535 (2012).