Title: GRABENSTEIN v SUNSTED
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 88-545
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: May 2, 1989

NO. 88-545 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1989 BETTY GRABENSTEIN, Plaintiff and Appellant, -vs- TERRY SUNSTED, Defendant and Respondent. APPEAL FROM: ~istrict Court of the Twentieth ~udicial ~istrict, In and for the County of Sanders, The Honorable C. R. ~ c ~ e i l , Judge presiding. COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellant: M. ~ichard Gebhardt, Missoula, Montana For Respondent: Robert I,. Fletcher, Thompson Falls, Montana Submitted on Briefs: April 6, 1989 Decided: May 2, 1989 \ .. .8 . ., Filed: o , . ,I C ' 3 . . r. I . . 03 1 , . . . h . .. -. ' C" ! : & : ! . Clerk , 1 c . J LL. L " . * ' T ; Z ;- - L * J @ . . , . .,.- 0 3 C I C.iJ ." ". - - M r . J u s t i c e Fred J. Weber d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court.. The p l a i n t i f f , M r s . Grabenstein, i n i t i a t e d t h i s s u i t i n j u s t i c e c o u r t t o recover t h e v a l u e o f h e r dog which was s h o t and k i l l e d by t h e defendant, M r . Sunsted, upon discovery of t h e dog i n h i s chicken coop. Following a t r i a l d e novo, t h e D i s t r i c t Court f o r t h e Twentieth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Sanders County, e n t e r e d judgment f o r t h e defendant and awarded him $30 damages f o r t h e l o s s o f h i s chickens and $45.50 f o r c o s t s i n c u r r e d i n l i t i g a t i o n . From t h a t judgment, t h e p l a i n t i f f a p p e a l s . W e a f f i r m . The i s s u e s a r e : 1. Did t h e D i s t r i c t Court err i n determining t h a t t h e defendant had a r i g h t t o shoot t h e dog which was k i l l i n g h i s p o u l t r y ? 2 . Did t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r i n i t s r e f u s a l t o r e c e i v e proposed f i n d i n g s o f f a c t o r conclusions o f law and t o waive c o u n s e l ' s r e q u e s t f o r o r a l argument? Both p a r t i e s l i v e i n a r u r a l s e t t i n g approximately 5 m i l e s from Heron, Montana. Defendant S u n s t e d ' s p r o p e r t y i s l o c a t e d j u s t over 1.5 m i l e s from t h e Grabensteins, where t h e Sunsteds c a r r y on v a r i o u s a g r i c u l t u r a l p u r s u i t s , i n c l u d i n g t h e r a i s i n g o f chickens. The Grabensteins w e r e t h e owners o f a l a r g e , black Labrador r e t r i e v e r named Duke, whose f a t e is t h e s u b j e c t o f t h i s appeal. While performing h i s morning chores on J u l y 1 6 , 1985, M r . Sunsted heard a dog bark i n t h e v i c i n i t y o f h i s chicken coop. Having p r e v i o u s l y experienced problems w i t h coyotes, M r . Sunsted grabbed a shotgun from t h e barn b e f o r e proceeding t o t h e coop. Outside t h e coop he found f i v e dead chickens. The door t o t h e coop was broken down. Ins+-de t h e coop, which was a f u l l y enclosed s t r u c t u r e , six more chickens l a y dead. The black Labrador, which was 1 a t e r claimed by t h e Grabensteins t o be "Duke," was found i n t h e c o r n e r t r y i n g t~ c a t c h t h e l a s t remaining l i v e chicken i n t h e coop. M r . Sunsted s h o t t h e dog, k i l l i n g him i n s t a n t l y , then r e p o r t e d t h e i n c i d e n t t o t h e deputy s h e r i f f . The deputy t r a c e d t h e ownership o f t h e dog t o t h e Grahensteins, who w e r e n o t i f i e d o f t h e shooting. M r . Sunsted disposed o f t h e dog himself. The Grahensteins l a t e r sought damages f o r t h e Toss of nuke, e s t i m a t i n g h i s v a l u e a t $3,500. Did t h e Di-strict Court err i n determini-ng t h a t t h e defendant had a r i g h t t o shoot t h e dog which was k i l l i n g h i s p o u l t r y ? The common law r u l e on t h i s m a t t e r i s a s foll.ows: . . . t o j u s t i f y t h e k i l l i n g o f a dog i n defense o f p r o p e r t y t h e r e must he an apparent n e c e s s i t y f o r t h e defense, h o n e s t l y believed t o be r e a l , and t h e a c t s of defense must i n themselves be reasonable, o r i n o t h e r words, it i s necessary t o show t h a t t h e danger from i t s a t t a c k was imminent a t t h e t i m e , and t h a t t h e i n j u r y could n o t otherwise have been prevented. Trenka v. Moos (1946), 118 Mont. 607, 613, 168 P.2d 837, 840-41. Trenka was t h e f i r s t c a s e i n Montana involving a "dog i n t h e chicken coop" s c e n a r i o . This Court s t a t e d t h a t a person p r o t e c t i n g h i s p r o p e r t y has t h e r i g h t t o a c t upon t h e reason- a b l e appearance o f t h i n g s and i f t h e r e i s reasonable cause t o b e l i e v e t h a t n e c e s s i t y f o r k i l l i n g t h e dog e x i s t s , t h a t person i s n o t l i a b l e . 168 P.2d a t 841. I n Trenka, t h i s Court h e l d t h a t t h e chicken owner was n o t reasonably j u s t i - f i e d i n shooting t h e dog because t h e dog was n o t i n t h e a c t o f molesting t h e fowl a t t h e time t h e f a t a l s h o t w a s f i r e d . 168 P.2d a t 841. Although p l a i n t i f f i n t h i s c a s e argues t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s conclusion should have been t h e same a s t h a t reached i n Trenka, w e conclude t h a t t h e f a c t s o f t h i s c a s e a r e s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from t h o s e p r e s e n t e d i n Trenka s o a s t o j u s t i f y a d i f f e r e n t r e s u l t . When t h e defendant was asked t o d e s c r i b e b ~ h a t t h e dog was doing when he f i r s t saw him, he s t a t e d : Well, he was kind o f i n a pounce p o s i t i o n with h i s f r o n t down. And t h e r e was a chicken t h a t was i n t h e c o r n e r t r y i n g t o escape h i s goings on. And he was b i t i n g a t it and the chicken would f l y and h e l d reach up -- now he was a b i g dog l i k e , you know, w e l l over 1 0 0 pounds I would guess. I r e a l l y d o n ' t know b u t t h a t ' s what I would guess. And he would rise up t r y i n g t o c a t c h t h e chicken and t h e chicken would come d.own. And of course i n t h a t s m a l l o f c o n f i n e s w i t h water and f e e d e r i n t h e r e , he had it p r e t t y well., you know, cornered. While t h e defendant d i d n o t a c t u a l l y see t h e chicken i n t h e d o g ' s mouth, he described. t h e b i r d a s being "poked f u l l of t e e t h h o l e s and p r e t t y well. chewed up" a s i f "something has had a hold o f it . . ." The defendant e v e n t u a l l y had t o k i l l t h e chicken because o f i t s mangled s t a t e . Testimony was o f f e r e d t o t h e e f f e c t t h a t Duke was a g e n t l e clog who was accustomed t o livj-ng and even s l e e p i n g w i t h chickens. Re- g a r d l e s s o f t h i s testimony a s t o Duke1 s s t o i c c h a r a c t e r , t h e lower c o u r t found t h a t t h e defendant had no p r i o r knowledge of t h e d o g ' s temperament o r d i s p o s i t i o n toward poul.try when he came upon t h e s i g h t o f a dog c o r n e r i n g one chicken s u r - rounded by numerous dead chickens. The evid.ence s u p p o r t s t h i s f i n d i n g t h a t defendant had no reason t o b e l i e v e t h a t t h e dog would j u s t a s soon s l e e p with chickens a s t e r r o r i z e them. The p l a i n t i f f argues t h a t because e l e v e n chickens a?-- ready l a y dead and t h e only p r o p e r t y remaining i n p e r i l was a 9;?.50 chicken, it was n o t reasonable f o r t h e defendant t o shoot t h ~ C 7 o q i n what p l a i n t i f f c h a r a c t e r i z e s a s an a c t of vengeance. The D i s t r i c t Court determined otherwise, and w e w i l l n o t s e t a s i d e t h a t determination i f it i s supported by s u b s t a n t i a l c r e d i b l e evidence. Parker v. Elder (Mont. 1988), 758 P.2d 292, 293, 45 St.Rep. 1305, 1307. Again, t h e defendant caught t h e dog l a t e r i d e n t i f i e d a s Duke i n t h e a c t o f molesting one O F h i s chickens. The e v i - dence e s t a b l i s h e s t h a t it reasonablv appeared t o t h e defen- d a n t t h a t t h e dog had broken i n t o a ful1.y enclosed chicken house, had k i l l e d 11 chickens, was a t t a c k i n g a 1 2 t h chicken, could n o t be contained i n t h e coop because o f i t s broken door, and t h a t t h e s i z e and unknown temperament o f t h e dog made p h y s i c a l r e s t r a i n t u n r e a l i s t i c and p o t e n t i a l l y danger- ous. TJnder t h o s e circumstances, w e conclude t h a t it was reasonable f o r defendant t o shoot t h e dog under t h e common law r u l e a s set f o r t h i n Trenka. W e hold t h a t s u b s t a n t i a l c r e d i b l e evidence e x i s t s t o support t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s determination. The p l a i n t i f f argues t h a t t h e common law r u l e i s abro- g a t e d by s t a t u t e i n Montana. The two r e l e v a n t s t a t u t e s a r e $ S 81-7-401 and 402, MCA. The f i r s t s t a t u t e , $ 81-7-401, MCA, allows t h e k i l l i n g o f a dog who k i l l s , wounds, o r i n - j u r e s any l i v e s t o c k n o t belonging t o t h e d o g ' s master. I n Granier v. Chagnon (1949), 1 2 2 Mont. 327, 203 P.2d 982, t h i s Court h e l d t h a t t h e d e f i n i t i o n o f l i v e s t o c k under t h i s s t a t - u t e i n e f f e c t a t t h a t t i m e does n o t include fowl. P l a i n t i f f argues t h a t S 81-7-402, MCA, i s t h e appl-icable s t a t u t e which s u b j e c t s t h e owner o f a p r e d a t o r dog t o L i a b i l - i t y f o r damages only. That s t a t u t e r e a d s i n r e l e v a n t p a r t : (1) The owner o f l i v e s t o c k o r p o u l t r y i n j u r e d o r k i l l e d by any dog may recover a s l i q u i d a t e d damages from t h e owner of t h e dog t h e a c t u a l v a l u e o f t h e animals k i l l e d o r t h e v a l u e o f t h e damages s u s t a i n e d by reason o f t h e i n j u r i e s a s t h e c a s e may be. Because neither this statute or 5 81-7-401, MCA, authorize the killing of a dog who destroys fowl, the plaintiff argues that the common law rule has been abrogated and defendant's only remedy is that of damages under S 81-7-402, MCA. We disagree. At common law, an owner of domestic fowl has a right to l r i l l a dog attacking or menacing their safety if such is necessary for their protection, and that common law right "is not abrogated by a statute which creates a right in a nonowner of certain enumerated animals, not including fowls, to kill a dog attacking such animals." 3A C.J.S. Animals, S 292. These statutes do not limit, either expressly or im- pliedly, the poultry owner's right at common law to kill an attacking dog when such a l c i l ! . i n g is reasonably justified. Rather, the statutes provide additional relief after the fact and address specific si.tuations not covered by the common law. We hold that the defendant's common law ri.ght to kill plaintiff ' s dog was not abrogated by Montana's stat.utes on the subject. Did the District Court err in its refusal to receive proposed findings of fact or conclusions of law and to waive counsel's request for oral argument? At the closing of the case, plaintiff's counsel offered to submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law which were refused by the court. Instead, the court offered five minutes to each party in which to be heard. Neither party took advantage of that time. We therefore conclude that no basi.s exists upon which to al.leae error as to the issue of oral. argument.. Furthermore, there is no mandatory requirement that the Dj-strict Court accept proposed Findings of fact or conclusions of law. Rule 52, M.R.Civ.P., provides that: The court may require any party to submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law for the court's consideration and the court may adopt any such proposed findings or conclusions as long as they are supported by the evidence and law of the case. (Emphasis added.) Here, the District Court properly exercised its discretion in declining tc accept proposed findings or conclusions. Affirmed.