Opinion ID: 882912
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: highway maintenance manual

Text: As pointed out in the majority opinion, the State of Montana's own highway maintenance manual provides that it is the State's responsibility to maintain fencing along interstate highways. The manual even points out exactly why it is important to maintain fences. It provides that [p]lacement of a fence not only outlines the limits of the right of way, but also keeps humans and animals away from hazardous areas. Careful inspection and routine maintenance should not be neglected. However, the majority dismissed the obligation created by the State's own maintenance manual by concluding that even though failure to comply with the maintenance manual is evidence of negligence, the manual did not create any duty. It is true that we have specifically held that violations of the Maintenance Manual provided evidence of negligence. Townsend v. State (1987), 227 Mont. 206, 209, 738 P.2d 1274, 1276. However, it is a non sequitur to conclude that there can be evidence of negligence without a duty. We have previously held that a duty is a prerequisite for finding negligence. In Roy v. Neibauer (1981), 191 Mont. 224, 226, 623 P.2d 555, 556, we held that: It is an elementary principle of law that before a claim for relief can be made against a defendant for negligence, the existence of a duty by the defendant to the plaintiff must be shown, along with the breach of that duty and a resulting injury. If there has to be a duty and a breach of duty before there can be a claim of negligence, how can failure to comply with the maintenance manual be evidence of negligence, but no basis for establishing a duty? In its effort to protect the State from accountability for its negligence in this case, the majority's opinion is logically inconsistent with the majority's previous decisions.