Shannon Jackson was injured while driving her car on a farm-to-market road when her vehicle hit and killed a horse named Tiny that was standing in the road. The force of the collision severely damaged her vehicle, which was totaled. Jackson brought a negligence suit against Tiny’s owner, Naomi Gibbs, for failing to prevent Tiny from wandering onto the road. Gibbs defended by saying she owed Jackson no duty on a farm-to-market road that was within a “free-range” area. The trial court rejected the defense, and a jury found the defendant negligent and liable for damages of $7,000. The state intermediate appeals court affirmed the trial court, ruling that although there was no statutory duty to keep Tiny off the road, the court recognized a common law duty “to keep domestic livestock from roaming at large on public roads.” This was a case of first impression before the state supreme court. Texas courts prior to this case had rejected the English common law rule imposing a duty on the owner of a domestic animal to prevent it from trespassing on a neighbor’s property. English common law imposed no corresponding duty to keep an animal from wandering onto a public road unless the animal had “vicious propensities.” In light of the above, Texas law generally permitted healthy, non vicious animals to roam freely, a condition associated with “free range” jurisdictions. An exception to the free-range law was statutorily recognized where a “local stock law” was enacted to keep animals off of a state highway. What arguments might be made supporting and opposing the new common law rule recognized by the intermediate court of appeals?