Title: AMBROGINI v TODD
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 81-266
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: February 25, 1982

I N THE SUPREME COURT O F T H E STATE O F MONTANA N o . 81-266 JAMES V. AMBROGINI and R O B E R T D. FLINT, P l a i n t i f f s and Appellants, S O N N Y TODD, THE STATE O F MONTANA and MONTANA STATE D E P A R T M E N T O F HIGHWAYS, Defendants and Respondents. O R D E R PER CURIAM: I T I S ORDERED t h a t t h e f o u r t h sentence of t h e t h i r d paragraph of t h e February 2 5 , 1981, opinion i n t h i s matter be amended t o state: "A fence was constructed and a rope g a t e i n s t a l l e d approximately mid-way up t h e l a n e t o t h e Todd ranch. " I T IS FURTHER O R D E R E D t h a t t h e second sentence of t h e f o u r t h paragraph of t h e same opinion be amended t o s t a t e : "The rope g a t e mid-way up t h e l a n e w a s a nuisance t o h i s customers." WITH THIS AMENDMENT of t h e f a c t s , t h e P e t i t i o n f o r a Rehearing of t h i s matter i s denied. DATED t h i s 15th day of April, 1982. g , - $ & . . - Chief J u s t i c e No. 81-266 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA JAMES V. AMBROGINI and ROBERT D. FLINT, Plaintiffs and Appellants, SONNY TODD, THE STATE OF MONTANA and MONTANA STATE DEPARTmNT OF HIGHWAYS, Defendants and Respondents. Appeal from: District Court of the Sixth Judicial District, In and for the County of Sweet Grass Honorable Jack D. Shanstrom, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellants: Gregory 0 . Morgan, Bozeman, Montana For Respondents: Landoe, Brown, Planalp, Kommers and Lineberger, Bozeman, Montana J. Daniel Hoven, Office of Attorney General, Helena, Montana Submitted on briefs: November 18, 1981 ~ecided: February 25, 1982 M r . J u s t i c e Frank B. Morrison, Jr., delivered t h e Opinion of t h e Court. The p l a i n t i f f s , James Ambrogini and Robert F l i n t , appeal from summary judgment entered by t h e S i x t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t Court i n favor of both defendants, Sonny Todd and t h e Montana Department of Highways. O n May 3, 1979, F l i n t was d r i v i n g a t r u c k owned by Ambrogini when it c o l l i d e d with two angus h e i f e r calves on Highway 10. The calves were owned by Todd. I n November of 1979, t h e p l a i n t i f f s f i l e d s e p a r a t e a c t i o n s a g a i n s t defendant Todd a l l e g i n g t h a t Todd's negligence had caused t h e c o l l i s i o n . The complaints w e r e amended i n A p r i l , 1980, t o include t h e S t a t e of Montana and t h e Montana Department of Highways as defendants. These claims have s i n c e been consolidated. The f a c t s a r e undisputed. I n 1936, t h e S t a t e of Montana acquired a highway right-of-way easement from t h e p r i o r owners of t h e Todd ranch. The S t a t e paid t h e p r i o r owners $323.75 t o c o n s t r u c t a fence along Highway 1 0 . A fence was constructed and a stock g a t e i n s t a l l e d a t t h e l a n e entrance. Through t h e y e a r s , t h e fence has been maintained by t h e owners of what i s now known a s t h e Todd ranch. Todd sells c a t t l e and horses. The stock g a t e a t t h e l a n e entrance w a s a nuisance t o h i s customers. Todd d i d n o t wish t o replace t h e stock g a t e with a c a t t l e guard due t o hazards posed t o horses. Therefore, he removed t h e stock g a t e and l i n e d t h e e n t i r e one hundred yard long l a n e with a mesh fence topped with barbed w i r e and wooden posts. Todd a l s o i n s t a l l e d a g a t e leading from t h e l a n e i n t o t h e parking l o t and turn-around a r e a used by h i s customers. Todd testi- f i e d t h a t s i n c e t h e e n t i r e land and l a n e were fenced, he f e l t t h e r e t o be no need t o i n s t a l l a stock c o n t r o l l i n g device a t t h e highway entrance t o t h e lane. I n f a c t , t h e l a n e was fenced i n order t o avoid t h e n e c e s s i t y of having a stock c o n t r o l l i n g device a t t h e l a n e entrance. O n t h e night of May 2 , 1979, approximately 50 head of angus h e i f e r s were contained i n t h e i r pen on t h e Todd ranch. The pen was enclosed by mesh fence very s i m i l a r t o t h a t described a s l i n i n g t h e lane. The c a t t l e , some of which were i n h e a t , broke through t h i s fence and entered a s h e l t e r b e l t a r e a surrounded by four-strand barbed w i r e fence. After grazing i n t h e s h e l t e r a r e a f o r some time, t h e c a t t l e crawled through t h a t fence without d i s t u r b i n g it and entered t h e parking l o t and turn-around a r e a used by Todd's customers f o r loading and unloading stock. The g a t e leading from t h a t a r e a t o t h e lane was open. The calves walked through t h e open g a t e , down t h e l a n e and onto Highway 1 0 . The truck driven by F l i n t c o l l i d e d with two of t h e h e i f e r s while they were on t h e highway. The truck went i n t o t h e borrow p i t and upset. F l i n t was i n j u r e d . O n January 1 2 , 1981, defendant Montana Department of Highways moved f o r summary judgment pursuant t o Rule 56 of t h e Montana Rules of C i v i l Procedure. On March 1 0 , 1981, a f t e r considering t h e b r i e f s , depositions, s t i p u l a t i o n s and arguments of t h e p a r t i e s , t h e c o u r t granted summary judgment f o r t h e following reasons: (1) t h e S t a t e had no s t a t u t o r y duty t o e r e c t a c a t t l e guard, g a t e o r stock c o n t r o l device a t t h e Highway 10 entrance t o Todd' s lane ; ( 2 ) t h e f a i l u r e t o c o n s t r u c t such a device r e s u l t e d i n no unreasonable r i s k of harm t o t h e t r a v e l l i n g public; and (3) t h e lack of a stock c o n t r o l device a t t h e e n t r y way t o t h e ranch was not, a s a matter of law, t h e proximate cause of t h e accident. ~ e f e n d a n t Sonny Todd moved f o r summary judgment on March 23, 1981. The c o u r t granted h i s motion on May 6 , 1981, f o r t h e following reasons: (1) Section 60-7-201, MCA, imposes l i a b i l i t y on a l i v e s t o c k owner only f o r negliqent conduct which r e s u l t s i n h i s l i v e s t o c k occupying a highway and causing i n j u r y ; ( 2 ) t h e r e was no evidence presented a t t r i a l showing defendant's fence t o be constructed o r maintained i n a negligent manner; and (3) t h e ranch owner, a s a matter of law, had no duty t o a n t i c i p a t e t h a t t h e c a t t l e would escape through two fence l i n e s and e n t e r a turn-around a r e a , t h e r e f o r e , making it necessary f o r Todd t o e i t h e r keep t h e g a t e between t h e a r e a and t h e l a n e s h u t when n o t i n use o r c o n s t r u c t a stock c o n t r o l device a t t h e entrance t o t h e lane. The i s s u e s presented t o t h i s Court on appeal a r e : (1) Did t h e defendant, Montana Department of Highways, have a duty t o r e q u i r e and maintain a c a t t l e guard o r g a t e a t t h e ranch entrance? ( 2 ) Did t h e defendant, Sonny Todd, have a l e g a l duty t o c o n s t r u c t and maintain a fence t o prevent l i v e s t o c k from e n t e r i n g t h e highway? (3) Is t h e r e s u f f i c i e n t evidence upon which reasonable men could conclude t h a t Todd was negligent i n e i t h e r maintaining o r constructing t h e fence through which t h e c a t t l e passed? W e uphold summary judgment f o r t h e Montana Department of Highways and r e v e r s e summary judgment f o r t h e defendant, Sonny Todd. W e remand t h i s case f o r a determination of whether o r not Todd was negligent f o r n o t constructing a stock c o n t r o l device a t t h e l a n e entrance or keeping t h e g a t e from t h e l a n e t o t h e turn-around a r e a s h u t a t a l l t i m e s during which it w a s n o t i n use. I f t h e trier of f a c t f i n d s Todd negligent, it must then determine whether h i s negligence was t h e proximate cause of t h e c o l l i s i o n on May 3, 1979. B r i e f s , depositions and testimony a t hearings e s t a b l i s h e d s e v e r a l undisputed, p e r t i n e n t f a c t s . The Todd ranch i s located off Highway 10 approximately 6.5 m i l e s e a s t of Big Timber. This i s an open range a r e a . Highway 1 0 i s c l a s s i f i e d by t h e Montana Department of Highways as being p a r t of t h e federal-aid primary system. I t i s not a c o n t r o l l e d access highway. The s e c t i o n of t h e highway near t h e Todd ranch w a s constructed p r i o r t o J u l y 1, 1969, and has n o t been reconstructed s i n c e t h a t date. This s e c t i o n has never been designated a "high-hazard area" pursuant t o s e c t i o n 60-7-102(2), Montana Code Annotated. The above f a c t s are r e l e v a n t t o s e c t i o n s 60-7-101 through 60-7-103, MCA, governing when t h e Montana Department of Highways is responsible f o r t h e fencing of highways, as well a s t o s e c t i o n s 60-7-201 through 60-7-203, MCA, governing when a rancher i s l i a b l e f o r damages caused by t h e presence of h i s c a t t l e on a highway. These s t a t u t e s a r e c o n t r o l l i n g i n t h i s s i t u a t i o n and we focus on them a s t h e b a s i s f o r t h i s decision. T H E LIABILITY OF THE D E P A R T M E N T OF H I G H W A Y S Section 60-7-101, MCA, and i t s l e g i s l a t i v e h i s t o r y i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e 1974 l e g i s l a t u r e intended t o i n c r e a s e t h e s a f e t y of t h e m o t o r i s t t r a v e l l i n g through t h e ranching a r e a s of Montana. Section 60-7-103, MCA, d e l e g a t e s t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r t h e m o t o r i s t s ' s a f e t y t o t h e Montana Department of Highways. It s t a t e s : "60-7-103. Department t o fence right-of-way through open range. (1) The department s h a l l fence t h e right-of-way of any p a r t of t h e s t a t e highway system t h a t i s constructed o r reconstructed a f t e r J u l y 1, 1969, through open range where l i v e s t o c k p r e s e n t a hazard t o t h e s a f e t y of t h e motorist. Where a fence is constructed, adequate stock g a t e s o r stock passes, as necessary, s h a l l be provided t o make land on e i t h e r s i d e of t h e highway usable f o r l i v e s t o c k purposes. " ( 2 ) The department s h a l l e r e c t a fence i n every high-hazard a r e a a s promptly a s possi- b l e , and t h e c o s t of such construction is an expenditure f o r t h e enforcement of federal- a i d highway s a f e t y programs. Gates, stock underpasses, water f a c i l i t i e s , and c a t t l e guards may be i n s t a l l e d where necessary t o make t h e land on e i t h e r s i d e of t h e highway usable f o r l i v e s t o c k purposes o r where a p u b l i c right-of-way i n t e r s e c t s t h e s t a t e high- way. " Section 60-7-102 (1) and ( 2 ) , MCA, d e f i n e s "open range" and "high-hazard area" as follows: " (1) 'Open range1 means those a r e a s of t h e s t a t e where l i v e s t o c k i s r a i s e d and maintain- ed i n s u f f i c i e n t numbers as t o c o n s t i t u t e a s i g n i f i c a n t p a r t of t h e l o c a l o r county econ- omy and where such animals graze and move about generally unrestrained by fences. " ( 2 ) A 'high-hazard a r e a 1 i s a segment of t h e primary highway system passing through open range where l i v e s t o c k moves on o r a c r o s s t h e highway o f t e n enough, i n enough numbers, and with enough ease of access t h a t such ani- mals c r e a t e a s i g n i f i c a n t t r a f f i c s a f e t y hazard. Evidence bearing on whether animals on t h e highway pose a s i g n i f i c a n t hazard in- cludes, without l i m i t a t i o n , p a s t accident records, t h e opinions of persons q u a l i f i e d by experience t o evaluate t h e r e l a t i v e s a f e t y of road conditions, and t h e t e r r a i n around t h e road. I' Since t h e passage of s e c t i o n 60-7-103, MCA, t h e Montana Department of Highways is obligated t o fence any right-of- way constructed o r reconstructed a f t e r J u l y 1, 1969, through a hazardous open range area. I n a d d i t i o n , t h e Department must a l s o fence any e x i s t i n g right-of-way which it c l a s s i f i e s a s being i n an open range area containing a s u f f i c i e n t number of roaming l i v e s t o c k t o c o n s t i t u t e a s i g n i f i c a n t t r a f f i c s a f e t y hazard. These fences must include stock g a t e s , stock passes and c a t t l e guards wherever necessary. The i n s t a n t s i t u a t i o n i s n o t covered by t h e s e s t a t u t e s . Depositions of two employees of t h e Department of Highways e s t a b l i s h t h a t no construction o r reconstruction has been completed on t h e r e l e v a n t highway s e c t i o n s i n c e J u l y 1, 1969. I n a d d i t i o n , t h e Montana Department of Highways has n o t c l a s s i f i e d t h i s segment of highways a s a "high-hazard area." Therefore, pursuant t o s e c t i o n 60-7-103, MCA, t h e Department of Highways has no s t a t u t o r y duty t o c o n s t r u c t a fence and thus no duty t o c o n s t r u c t a stock c o n t r o l device. P l a i n t i f f s a l s o r e l y on s e c t i o n 81-4-103, MCA, a s a b a s i s f o r e s t a b l i s h i n g negligence on t h e p a r t of t h e Department of Highways. That s e c t i o n s t a t e s : " C i v i l L i a b i l i t y . Any person constructing o r maintaining any fence of any kind n o t described i n 81-4-101 i s l i a b l e i n a c i v i l a c t i o n f o r a l l damages caused by reason of i n j u r y t o stock r e s u l t i n g from such defec- t i v e fence." Section 81-4-101, MCA, d e f i n e s a l e g a l fence. The d e f i n i t i o n s a r e based on height and fencing m a t e r i a l . P l a i n t i f f s p r e s e n t no f a c t s a l l e g i n g t h a t t h e Todd ranch fence f a i l s t o conform t o t h e d e f i n i t i o n of a l e g a l fence. Rather, p l a i n t i f f s a l l e g e t h a t s e c t i o n 81-4-102, MCA, r e q u i r e s t h e presence of an a u t o pass i n order t o c r e a t e a l e g a l fence. This a l l e g a t i o n i s n o t well founded. Section 81-4-102, MCA, s t a t e s merely t h a t t h e presence of an auto pass w i l l n o t make an otherwise l e g a l fence i l l e g a l . This s e c t i o n ensures t h a t a fence need n o t be a c e r t a i n height where v e h i c l e s pass through it i n order t o r e t a i n i t s l e g a l c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n . I t does not imply t h a t a fence without an a u t o pass i s i l l e g a l . A s t h e r e are no o t h e r a l l e g a t i o n s by p l a i n t i f f s t h a t t h e Todd fence i s i l l e g a l , t h e Department of Highways is n o t l i a b l e t o p l a i n t i f f s f o r construction of an i l l e g a l fence pursuant t o s e c t i o n 81- 4-103, MCA. in ally, p l a i n t i f f s a s s e r t a general duty on t h e p a r t of t h e S t a t e t o b u i l d and maintain highways i n a s a f e manner, S t a t e ex. rel. Byorth v. D i s t r i c t Court, 14th J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t (1977), 175 Mont. 63, 572 P.2d 201, and t o ensure t h a t t h e roads a r e n o t constructed negligently. Negligent conduct i s t h a t which f a l l s below t h e standard e s t a b l i s h e d by law f o r t h e p r o t e c t i o n of o t h e r s a g a i n s t unreasonable r i s k and n e c e s s a r i l y involves t h e concepts of reasonableness and f o r e s e e a b i l i t y . Mang v. Eliasson (1969), 153 Mont. 431, 435, 458 P. 2d 777. The S t a t e paid i n 1936 f o r t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n of a r i g h t - of-way fence on t h e Todd ranch. Undisputed evidence i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e ranch owners have s i n c e maintained t h e fence and t h a t t h e fence has been, and c u r r e n t l y i s , i n e x c e l l e n t condition. The lane leading from t h e Todd ranch t o Highway 1 0 i s t o t a l l y fenced. It contains a g a t e with an adequate l a t c h . These f a c t s made it reasonable f o r t h e Department of Highways t o b e l i e v e t h e road t o be s a f e from t h e i n t r u s i o n of l i v e s t o c k from t h e Todd ranch. The a c t i o n s of t h e c a t t l e i n t h i s p a r t i c u l a r i n s t a n c e were not foreseeable by t h e Department of Highways. A s t h e S t a t e has no s t a t u t o r y o r general duty t o r e q u i r e a c a t t l e guard o r stock g a t e a t t h e l a n e entrance t o t h e Todd ranch, f a i l u r e t o c o n s t r u c t such a device w a s n o t negligence on t h e p a r t of t h e S t a t e . It i s fundamental t o t h e law of t o r t s t h a t t h e r e can be no negligence i f no duty e x i s t s . Prosser on t h e Law of Torts S30 (1971). W e uphold t h e summary judgment determination f o r defendant Department of Highways as p l a i n t i f f s f a i l e d t o e s t a b l i s h any duty, a m a t e r i a l element of t h e negligence claim. THE LIABILITY OF S O N N Y TODD The D i s t r i c t Court found t h e segment of Highway 1 0 involved i n t h i s case t o be located i n an open range a r e a . Generally, an open range designation implies t h a t an owner i s not l i a b l e f o r h i s wandering l i v e s t o c k . Beinhorn v. Griswold (1902), 27 E4ont. 79, 90, 69 P. 557, 558; Thompson v. Mattuschek (1959), 134 Mont. 500, 506, 333 P.2d 1022, 1025; Bartsch v. I r v i n e (1967), 149 Mont. 405, 427 P.2d 302. The open range t r a d i t i o n has become increasingly eroded over t h e years a s a g r e a t e r number of m o t o r i s t s have appeared on Montana's roads and highways. Sections 60-7-201 and 60-7- 202, MCA, a r e t h e s t a t u t o r y embodiments of t h i s erosion. P r i o r t o 1974 t h e s t a t u t e s made it unlawful f o r t h e owner of l i v e s t o c k t o w i l f u l l y allow them t o graze on t h e right-of-way of fenced f e d e r a l and s t a t e highways. See s e c t i o n 32-21-178, R.C.M., 1947. The s p e c i f i c language employed was " s h a l l not w i l f u l l y permit." I n 1974, t h e successor of t h a t s e c t i o n was amended t o s t a t e , i n r e l e v a n t p a r t : "60-7-201. Grazing l i v e s t o c k on highway un- lawful. A person who owns o r possesses l i v e - stock may n o t permit t h e l i v e s t o c k t o graze, remain upon, o r occupy a p a r t of t h e r i g h t - of-way o f : " ( 2 ) a s t a t e highway designated by agreement between t h e highway commission and t h e secre- t a r y of t r a n s p o r t a t i o n a s a p a r t of t h e feder- al-aid primary system, except a s provided i n 60-7-202." P l a i n t i f f s a s s e r t t h a t t h e 1974 amendment r e s u l t e d i n a standard of absolute l i a b i l i t y f o r conduct by a rancher r e s u l t i n g i n a f a i l u r e t o keep h i s l i v e s t o c k off a highway. W e cannot agree. P r i o r t o 1974, a rancher was l i a b l e only when he w i l f u l l y allowed h i s l i v e s t o c k t o roam on a highway. The l e g i s l a t u r e ' s choice of t h e t e r m "may n o t permit" implies t h e reduction of t h e w i l f u l l n e s s standard t o one of negligence. P r a c t i c a l l y every s t a t e which has considered t h e i s s u e agrees t h a t t h e use of words such a s "permit," "allow" o r " s u f f e r " implies l i a b i l i t y f o r negligent conduct a s opposed t o absolute l i a b i l i t y . See, e.g., Santanello v. Cooper (Ariz. 1970), 106 Ariz. 262, 475 P.2d 246; P o r i e r v. Spivey (Ga. 1958), 97 Ga. App. 209, 1 0 2 S.E.2d 706; Kupper v. Connolly (La. App. 1963), 153 So.2d 915; Sutton v. Duke (N.c. 1969), 7 N.C. App. 100, 171 S.E.2d 343, a f f ' d . (1970), 277 N.C. 94, 176 S.E.2d 161; Burback v. Bucher (Wa. 1960), 56 Wash. 2d 875, 355 P. 2d 981; Sparks v. Doe ( ~ y . 1964), 379 S.W.2d 252; Dollarhide v. Knight ( M i s s . 1953), 216 M i s s . Ranchers i n Montana a r e now l i a b l e f o r negligent r a t h e r than w i l f u l 1 conduct which r e s u l t s i n t h e presence of t h e i r c a t t l e on the right-of -ways. Section 60-7-202, MCA, contains t h e exclusions t o s e c t i o n 60-7-201, MCA, and s t a t e s : "60-7-202. Exclusions. Section 60-7-201 does n o t apply t o t h e following: " ( 1 ) l i v e s t o c k on s t a t e highways under t h e charge of one o r more herders; " ( 2 ) t h e p a r t s of fenced highways adjacent t o open range where a highway device has n o t been i n s t a l l e d t o exclude range l i v e s t o c k ; " ( 3 ) t h e p a r t s of a s t a t e highway o r a p a r t of t h e federal-aid primary system which t h e department of highways designates a s being impracticable t o exclude livestock. These portions of t h e highway s h a l l be marked by proper s i g n s i n accordance with t h e depart- ment's manual and s p e c i f i c a t i o n s f o r a uni- form system of t r a f f i c - c o n t r o l devices." The undisputed evidence c l e a r l y i n d i c a t e s t h a t Todd's h e i f e r s were n o t i n t h e charge of one o r more herders on t h e n i g h t of May 2 , 1979. Therefore, exclusion number one does n o t apply. W e f i n d t h a t exclusion number two a p p l i e s only t o l i v e s t o c k which wander from open range onto adjacent fenced highway. Open range i s defined i n s e c t i o n 60-7-102, MCA, a s being an a r e a where animals graze and move about generally unrestrained by fences. Todd's h e i f e r s were r e s t r a i n e d by fences p r i o r t o breaking f r e e and roaming onto Highway 1 0 . Therefore, exclusion number two i s inapplicable. F i n a l l y , no evidence was presented t o i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e Department of Highways designated t h e r e l e v a n t s e c t i o n of Highway 10 a s impracticable f o r excluding l i v e s t o c k . Exclusion number t h r e e i s a l s o inapplicable. A s Todd does not q u a l i f y f o r any of t h e exclusions found i n s e c t i o n 60-7-202, MCA, w e f i n d him s u b j e c t t o s e c t i o n 60-7-201, MCA. W e hold t h a t Todd has a l e g a l duty t o e x e r c i s e due c a r e i n preventing h i s l i v e s t o c k from wandering on Highway 1 0 . The fence surrounding t h e Todd ranch was i n e x c e l l e n t condition. However, he d i d not c o n s t r u c t a stock c o n t r o l device a t t h e entrance t o h i s lane because he had constructed fence along t h e e n t i r e length of t h e l a n e and had i n s t a l l e d a g a t e f u r t h e r up t h e l a n e toward t h e farm i t s e l f . Through some inadvertent a c t i o n , t h e g a t e t o t h e lane w a s open on t h e n i g h t of May 2 , 1979, and e a r l y morning of May 3 , 1979. The reasonableness of Todd's conduct i s f o r a jury t o decide. W e remand t h i s case t o t h e D i s t r i c t Court f o r t r i a l a s t o defendant Todd. W e a f f i r m summary judgment i n favor of t h e S t a t e . We Concur: LJ ydoL 6- XL-~~L~,, J tic s 2 -