CO Code § 40-27-101 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 40 - Utilities|Article 27 - Killing Stock - Fencing|§ 40-27-101. Owner Driving Stock on Track

 If the owner of any stock drives any stock on the line of the track of any railway company or corporation, with intent to injure such company or corporation, and if said stock is killed or injured, the owner shall not receive any damages from the railroad company or corporation therefor, and shall be liable to such company or corporation for all damage such company or corporation may suffer in consequence of said act, and commits a class 6 felony and shall be punished as provided in section 18-1.3-401 , C.R.S.; but nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent any person from allowing his or her stock to pasture on the lands adjacent to the line of such railroads or to drive his or her stock over or across any such track at suitable times and places.   History. Source: G.L. § 2573. G.S. § 2808. R.S. 08: § 5475. C.L. § 2858. CSA: C. 139, § 44. CRS 53: § 116-8-1. C.R.S. 1963: § 116-8-1. L. 77: Entire section amended, p. 887, § 75, effective July 1, 1979. L. 89: Entire section amended, p. 853, § 147, effective July 1. L. 2002: Entire section amended, p. 1559, § 360, effective October 1. History. Source: G.L. § 2573. G.S. § 2808. R.S. 08: § 5475. C.L. § 2858. CSA: C. 139, § 44. CRS 53: § 116-8-1. C.R.S. 1963: § 116-8-1. L. 77: Entire section amended, p. 887, § 75, effective July 1, 1979. L. 89: Entire section amended, p. 853, § 147, effective July 1. L. 2002: Entire section amended, p. 1559, § 360, effective October 1.    Editor's note:   The effective date for amendments made to this section by chapter 216, L. 77, was changed from July 1, 1978, to April 1, 1979, by chapter 1, First Extraordinary Session, L. 78, and was subsequently changed to July 1, 1979, by chapter 157, § 23, L. 79. See People v. McKenna, 199 Colo. 452 , 611 P.2d 574 (1980).   Cross references:   For the legislative declaration contained in the 2002 act amending this section, see section 1 of chapter 318, Session Laws of Colorado 2002.   ANNOTATION   Former provision was held unconstitutional as violating the due process clause of the United States constitution in Denver & R. G. Ry. v. Henderson, 10 Colo. 1 , 13 P. 910 (1887); Atchison, T. & S. F. R. R. v. Betts, 10 Colo. 431 , 15 P. 821 (1887); Denver & R. G. Ry. v. Crawford, 11 Colo. 598 , 19 P. 673 (1888); Union Pac. Ry. v. Proctor, 12 Colo. 1 94, 20 P. 615 (1888); Union Pac. Ry. v. Sternberg, 13 Colo. 141 , 21 P. 1021 (1889); Denver & R. G. Ry. v. Stewart, 1 Colo. App. 227, 28 P. 658 (1891); Denver & R. G. Ry. v. Outcalt, 2 Colo. App. 395, 31 P. 177 (1892); Wadsworth v. Union Pac. Ry., 18 Colo. 600 , 33 P. 515, 36 Am. St. R. 309, 23 L.R.A. 812 (1893); Union Pac. Ry. v. Kerr, 19 Colo. 273 , 35 P. 47 (1893); Rio Grande Ry. v. Vaughn, 3 Colo. App. 465, 34 P. 264 (1893); Rio Grande W. Ry. v. Chamberlin, 4 Colo. App. 149, 34 P. 1113 (1893); Atchison, T. & S. F. R. R. v. Tanner, 19 Colo. 559 , 36 P. 541 (1894); Rio Grande W. Ry. v. Whitson, 4 Colo. App. 426, 36 P. 159 (1894); Union P. R. R. v. Bullis, 6 Colo. App. 64, 39 P. 897 (1895); Sweetland v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. R., 22 Colo. 220 , 43 P. 1006 (1896); Denver & R. G. R. R. v. Wheatley, 7 Colo. App. 284, 43 P. 450 (1896); Denver & R. G. R. R. v. Thompson, 12 Colo. App. 1, 54 P. 402 (1898); Burlington & M. R. R. R. v. Campbell, 14 Colo. App. 141, 59 P. 424 (1899).