Also you would have to prove the pilot knew the $1/yr property had crap fences, employed fake cowboys and had a neighbor with an amourous bull.

Which is also dubious given the whole " fence out county" issue. If they didn't want that bull interfering they should have had better fencing in place.

Counter point, why would you bother to make improvements on a property only valued at $1/yr

Another Doug said:

---

Counter point, why would you bother to make improvements on a property only valued at $1/yr

---

Especially when it can get sold to a developer at any minute.

To keep your cows in and neighbors bull out.

Another Doug said:

---

Counter point, why would you bother to make improvements on a property only valued at $1/yr

---

That is not the value of the property. Hypothetically, if your business required a certain level of "security" that it in itself would be well worth the cost to install fences.

I've been following this story through this thread and the news coverage that has resulted, and thought I would compile information that's been provided to this point before posing some of the questions that I have. And yes, I'm aware that this is a long post.

• Gutierrez served as BBC member from Jan 2015 to Nov 2020; served as non-voting liaison for BBC from Dec 2020 to Dec 2022. (The Eagle, 3/16/23)

• La Pistola has been a client of Rafter D since 2021 and has been engaged in an embryo program since that time. (cgdorn post, 3/15/23 at 10:23)

• Gutierrez has been a longtime client of Dorn and their embryo project has been underway for more than a year. (The Eagle, 3/16/23)

• Property leased to Rafter D by BBC in April 2022 requiring, among other things, that Rafter D indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the BBC from any injury (defined to include impairment of the property's use or harm to a person) and notify the BBC of any trespassers of evidence of trespassers. (cgdorn post, 3/15/23 at 10:23; BBC lease)

• Borrel makes emergency landing on the property on 12/27/22; plane is insured by Starr Insurance Companies. (Exhibit A to Plaintiff's Petition)

• None of the fencing on the property was damaged during the emergency landing. (The Eagle, 3/16/23).

• The next round of the embryo project was scheduled to begin in early Jan 2023. (cgdorn post, 3/15/23 at 10:23)

• Gutierrez' cattle were penned at FAA's request following the emergency landing for an unspecified but extended period of time during which a neighbor's bull broke in and "messed up the whole program" resulting in cancellation of the embryo project contract. (The Eagle, 3/16/23)

• Retrieval of the plane within 1-2 weeks following the emergency landing would have resulted no "problems out there at all" according to Dorn. (The Eagle, 3/16/23)

• Gutierrez contacted Borrel and Starr about damages incurred due to emergency landing. (Exhibit A to Plaintiff's Petition; Doss Press Release)

• Borrel says that Gutierrez represented that he is in control of the property. (Plaintiff's Petition).

• Rafter D says it was not contacted by Borrel or Starr following the emergency landing. (cgdorn post, 3/15/23 at 10:23; The Eagle, 3/16/23)

• BBC says it was not contacted by Borrel or Starr following the emergency landing. (BBC statement, 3/14/23; BBC statement 3/16/23)

• Borrel's attorney sent a letter to Gutierrez dated 2/8/23 stating he (Gutierrez) was refusing to allow access to the property until the damages issue was resolved and that there had been multiple attempts by Starr to retrieve the plane. (Exhibit A to Plaintiff's Petition)

• Borrel filed a lawsuit as sole plaintiff against Cardenas and Gutierrez on 2/23/23 . (Plaintiff's Petition)

• First TexAgs thread about emergency landing created 3/8/23.

• Second TexAgs thread about emergency landing created on 3/13/23.

• BBC was made aware of emergency landing due to a social media debate and contacted Borrel's insurance company requesting plane be removed NLT 3/16/23. (BBC statement, 3/14/23; BBC statement 3/16/23)

• BBC was unaware that Gutierrez was a client of Rafter D. (BBC statement, 3/14/23; BBC statement 3/16/23)

• BBC was contacted by Borrel's attorney on 3/15/23 about removal of plane taking place sometime during the week of Mar 20-25. (BBC statement 3/16/23)

• Gutierrez' attorney stated on 3/16/23 that the embryo project contract was cancelled due to an extended interruption due to the emergency landing, that Gutierrez attempted to coordinate the removal of the plane, that the retrieval contractor cancelled their own efforts on each occasion. (Doss Press Release)

From this, two thoughts come to mind: (1) the truth is usually in between and (2) what is not said is often as important as what is said.

With that in mind:

• I don't think it's too much of a stretch to believe that Rafter D was aware of the emergency landing almost immediately.

• I also don't think it's too much of a stretch to believe that Gutierrez communicated to Rafter D that he was in contact with Borrel and/or Starr.

• I also don't think it's too much of a stretch to believe that Rafter D was well aware that the plane was still on the property long before the lawsuit was filed in February.
• I also don't think it's too much of a stretch to believe that if Borrel's attorney was aware that Rafter D and BBC were the leaseholder and property owner he would have communicated with them rather than limiting his communication to only Gutierrez and Cardenas.

So,

• If time was of the essence to prevent cancellation of a lucrative contract (removal within 1-2 weeks would have resulted in no issues for the project according to Dorn), why was Gutierrez the only person who contacted Borrel and Starr? (no one disputes that Gutierrez was in contact with Borrel following the emergency landing the dispute is over the content and context of those conversations and no one claims that anyone other than Gutierrez was in contact with Borrel and Starr prior to mid-March)

• Why didn't Gutierrez, as a client of the leaseholder, defer to, or at least involve, Rafter D regarding removal of the plane from the property it was leasing from the BBC?

• Why didn't Gutierrez, as a client of the leaseholder, ever inform Borrel and/or Starr that Rafter D was the leaseholder and/or that the BBC was the property owner?

• Why did neither Rafter D nor Gutierrez inform the BBC about the issue when it became clear that there was a real likelihood of litigation involving BBC's property?

• If Rafter D really was unaware of Gutierrez' contact with Borrel and/or Starr, why didn't Gutierrez, as a client of the leaseholder, not inform him of those communications or his personal efforts to coordinate retrieval of the plane?

• If it was a neighbor's bull that "messed up the whole program," (1) how was the emergency landing in any way an intervening event in the process that ultimately led to cancellation of the contract and (2) did Rafter D notify the BBC of the trespass or evidence of the trespass as required by the lease agreement?

Those are some of the questions that came to mind while following this story. I'm not asking them with an expectation of receiving an answer, just offering them as food for thought.

With regard to the letter Gryder says he received from Doss, I didn't include it in the information above because I have not come across a link to the actual letter. I know it is screenshotted in the first post of this thread, but I'd prefer something more than a screenshot before including it. My concerns with that screenshot are that it's clear what's being shown is a Word or email document (you can tell because of the colored grammar lines) as opposed to a mailed letter or PDF (I don't know why an attorney would send a demand to cease and desist in a format that could easily be edited), the informal closing ("Sincerely, Matt"), a lack of a letterhead, and that the signature block appears to have been pasted onto the document rather than included in the document. It may be what Gyder says it is, but there are too many questions about its authenticity at this point for me to include it.

Doss does refer to "uniformed internet bloggers" in his press release, but there is no further context to tell if he is referring to Gryder or certain postings in these TexAgs threads nor does he mention the letter Gryder says came from him. Again, what is not said is often as important as what is said.

Plane crash = FAA requested cattle be kept away from the plane = cattle being held in an area a bull could access = bull doing bull things caused creation of embryos that were NOT the ones the breeding program had in mind. So if the plane had never crashed, the cattle would not have been accessible to the bull who messed it all up.

DannyDuberstein said:

---

They need to sort out whether this rogue bull was the young type that would have run down there to F one of these cows. Or the old, wise type that would have walked down there and F'd them all.

---

I'm thinkin' the rogue bull parachuted in, as there is only one small acreage pasture anywhere adjacent to the longhorns...

spike427 said:

---

Plane crash = FAA requested cattle be kept away from the plane = cattle being held in an area a bull could access = bull doing bull things caused creation of embryos that were NOT the ones the breeding program had in mind. So if the plane had never crashed, the cattle would not have been accessible to the bull who messed it all up.

---

I feel like I am in some bizarro divorce/child custody hearing. Husband pisses off his wife. She sleeps with another man and gets pregnant. Husband should pay child support because he pissed off his wife.

I think it's a bridge too far to say that the cattle would not have been accessible to the neighbor's bull. The cattle remained on the property, just not allowed to openly graze. The lease agreement (Clauses and Covenants, A, i) required Rafter D to maintain the fences. The cattle were penned up behind fences required to be maintained by Rafter D regardless of their location on the property.

GSS said:

---

DannyDuberstein said:

---

They need to sort out whether this rogue bull was the young type that would have run down there to F one of these cows. Or the old, wise type that would have walked down there and F'd them all.

---

I'm thinkin' the rogue bull parachuted in, as there is only one small acreage pasture anywhere adjacent to the longhorns...

---

That's good bull.

Jsimonds58 said:

---

Yeah I'm looking at a map and I'm not quite sure where said bull could have even come from.

---

Go to google maps, zoom in back and to the left, and it looks like there is a bull over there in the grassy area.

EliteElectric said:

---

OnlyForNow said:

---

So from your, seemingly educated perspective, at least on this one issue.

The plane causing property damage is akin to a car causing property damage? Even in an emergency situation?

I guess, I never really thought of it that way, I was just under the silly impression that property damage wouldn't even come up... why I thought that I have no idea. But to think that the plane physically caused more than a few thousand dollars of damage to fences or the pasture is a little suspect to me.

---

I don't know if the plane did or did not cause property damage. As for the "emergency situation", I doubt a plane crashing is held to a "lessor" standard than an auto, in fact I would think since it's markedly harder to get a pilot license than an auto license they would be held to a greater standard. If the brakes fail on my truck and I rear end you I am still liable. If my brakes fail and I drive into a pasture to avoid hitting you I am still liable for any and all injury, either physical or monetarily that the crash caused. If my truck was left on the side of the road or in a pasture after the wreck my insurance company would want it towed somewhere ASAP to avoid any further injury.

Full disclosure I know zero about aircraft surety so I may be way off here, but I would assume if all was up and up pilot's surety would want that aircraft removed and an accident report from FAA ASAP. The "apparent" lack of interest from them is very odd to me. Again it may be SOP for aircraft sureties and I am just ignorant.

---

Having just dealt with insurance to get a vehicle repaired after getting rear ended, it wouldn't surprise me if the insurance company dragged on getting anything done.

spike427 said:

---

Plane crash = FAA requested cattle be kept away from the plane = cattle being held in an area a bull could access = bull doing bull things caused creation of embryos that were NOT the ones the breeding program had in mind. So if the plane had never crashed, the cattle would not have been accessible to the bull who messed it all up.

---

I don't understand that chain. Presumably the cattle was held in a smaller enclosure inside the fenced area. If the bull could get into the smaller enclosure, wouldn't the bull have access to the full pasture and the cows anyway?

That's confusing to me as well. Or not choosing the option of throwing up some temporary fencing around the plane. If I'm potentially out $250k, my ass is headed to Home Depot or Tractor Supply to fence off this little plane. 2-3 hours total and I'm done doing it by myself

[We have made it clear that we are not going to allow thread derails and you have ignored those warnings. This is a 23 page thread on the subject with very little moderation and you are trying to derail it into a discussion about moderation because you had some removed. We are not going to allow that and if you persist when this ban is over you will get a long ban. -Staff]

does her milkshake bring all the bulls to the yard?

Thanks for the comprehensive time line. Never caught the estray bull issue. Got me to wondering, was the SO contacted during the bull event, per:

Sec. 142.003. DISCOVERY OF ESTRAY; NOTICE. (a) If an estray, without being herded with other livestock, roams about the property of a person without that person's permission or roams about public property, the owner of the private property or the custodian of the public property, as applicable, shall, as soon as reasonably possible, report the presence of the estray to the sheriff of the county in which the estray is discovered.

I generally know those neighbors with sorry fences and have from time to time assisted SO in contacting/holding until them 'estrays' are picked up.

If this goes to court some way, some how. We need to fly in Aggiehawg to do live stream of it.

luckily, she's just one county away

spike427 said:

---

Plane crash = FAA requested cattle be kept away from the plane = cattle being held in an area a bull could access = bull doing bull things caused creation of embryos that were NOT the ones the breeding program had in mind. So if the plane had never crashed, the cattle would not have been accessible to the bull who messed it all up.

---

Wow....this has bar exam question written all over it...

-Was it a conscious and intended breach of duty (given the emergency aspects) that caused the supposed tort (unintended insemination)

-Was it foreseeable that the crash would cause the ultimate tort (inferior bull getting access) Eggshell plaintiff issues?

-Numerous duty to mitigate issues