K & M Ent. v Pennington

An initial lawsuit was one by K &M. 

Pennington owned a large piece of property. K & M decided to enter into a contract that allowed them two utilize some of the land to grow their crops. During this time their crops grew successfully until a large amount of deers entered the property and destroyed a large amount of the crop. 

Once K & M learned about the crop being destroyed they asked if they would be able too erect a large electrical fence on the property because their lease agreement allowed for the farmer to remedy any issues with the crops. Pennington said probably not, but they would ask the land owner (his father). No response or follow up happened and the crop was further destroyed.

The initial lawsuit stated that Pennington would be held accountable for damaged to K & Ms property because he stopped K & M from preventing damage to their crops.

However, this judgement was reversed on the facts that,

• Pennington NEVER stopped K & M from ramifying a solution. 
• Pennington explained that the deer were an "act of God"
• An "Act of God" is something that would be not forseen
• Pennington NEVER refused them from using the fence
• K & M never followed up about the fence
• The fence was ruled to NOT have been a component in fixing the problem
• The damage done to the crop was already too far gone for a fence too fix
• Pennington could not have prevented the damage from occurring and did not cause the damage themselves.