A trainer of homing pigeons brought several of them to a park that he often used for training. He had trained this group of pigeons carefully and was confident that they would readily find their way home. When they were released, one of the pigeons inexplicably turned in the opposite direction from home. Several blocks away at the other end of the park, it collided with a radio-controlled model airplane that its owner had just purchased and was trying out for the first time. The collision sent the airplane out of control; it dipped low across a highway and was struck and run over by a truck.

The airplane owner sued the pigeon trainer for the destruction of his airplane. The parties stipulated to the above facts and the airplane owner presented evidence of his damages. The trainer then moved for a directed verdict.

Should it be granted?

The granted verdict claims the innocence of the person being accused, in this specific case it has to be granted since the trainer as it says took reasonable care in training his pigeons, which means that he never had any intention of affecting others with his actions, besides the unfortunate events were started for an unexpected action of a pigeon, but at the end, it was the truck the one that destroyed the plane.