Opinion ID: 1170937
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF ORS 607.044 and 607.045(1)

Text: ORS 607.044 provides for civil liability when a person permits livestock to run at large in a livestock district. Schwerdt v. Myers, 297 Or. 273, 278, 683 P.2d 547 (1984). ORS 607.044 provides: A person shall be liable to the owner or lawful possessor of land if the person permits an animal of a class of livestock to run at large upon such land and the land is located in a livestock district in which it is unlawful for such class of livestock to be permitted to run at large. ORS 607.044 creates liability for permitting livestock to run at large upon the land of another. On its face, it does not create liability for permitting livestock to run at large upon a highway. ORS 607.045(1), when read with ORS 607.992, [2] creates criminal liability. See State v. Kelso, 70 Or. App. 393, 689 P.2d 1307 (1984). ORS 607.045(1) provides: No person owning or having the custody, possession or control of an animal of a class of livestock shall permit the animal to run at large or to be herded, pastured or to go upon the land of another in a livestock district in which it is unlawful for such class of livestock to be permitted to run at large. This court has construed ORS 607.045(1) to proscribe permitting livestock to run at large upon a highway. Parker v. Reter, 234 Or. 544, 548, 383 P.2d 93 (1963). ORS 607.045(1) thus appears more extensive than ORS 607.044 in attaching liability to certain activities. In his brief to the Court of Appeals, plaintiff argued that he was entitled to recover under ORS 607.045(1). While conceding that defendant was not criminally negligent, plaintiff argued that only simple negligence is required to recover under the statute. Compare Watzig v. Tobin, 292 Or. 645, 642 P.2d 651 (1982) (criminal negligence required to prove violation of ORS 607.510, a related criminal statute) with Schwerdt v. Myers, supra (simple negligence appropriate standard under ORS 607.044). The Court of Appeals, however, held for plaintiff on different grounds. It concluded that ORS 607.044 and 607.045(1) are directed towards the same activity, i.e., permitting livestock to run at large upon a highway. Dunlap v. Dickson, supra, 91 Or. App. at 153-54, 754 P.2d 27. According to this interpretation, a person may be criminally liable under ORS 607.045(1) and civilly liable under ORS 607.044 for permitting livestock to run at large upon a highway. Plaintiff's claims under either ORS 607.044 and 607.045(1) constitute claims for statutory liability. [3] See Bellikka v. Green, 306 Or. 630, 762 P.2d 997 (1988); Gattman v. Favro, 306 Or. 11, 757 P.2d 402 (1988). To prevail, plaintiff must show that either statute grants him, as a member of the class the statute is designed to protect, the right to recover damages if noncompliance with the statute results in harm of the kind the statute was designed to prevent. See Gattman v. Favro, supra, 306 Or. at 24, 757 P.2d 402. Having said that, it is clear that plaintiff cannot recover under ORS 607.044. By its terms, the statute imposes liability only in cases in which livestock runs at large upon the lands of another. By no stretch of the imagination is a motorist an owner or lawful possessor of the highway upon which he or she drives so as to bring that motorist within the confines of ORS 607.044. Because plaintiff is not a member of the class ORS 607.044 is designed to protect, nor are plaintiff's injuries the kind of harm the statute is designed to prevent, we conclude that plaintiff cannot recover under ORS 607.044. For different reasons, we conclude that plaintiff cannot recover under ORS 607.045(1). As stated above, ORS 607.045(1) proscribes permitting livestock to run at large upon a highway. Parker v. Reter, supra, 234 Or. at 548, 383 P.2d 93. Parker, however, was a common law negligence case that did not concern whether the plaintiff could recover on the basis of statutory liability. Plainly, the legislature did not expressly intend a right to recover damages. ORS 607.045(1) is a criminal statute. While criminalizing conduct, it does not expressly provide a civil remedy to those injured by the conduct. Moreover, we do not infer an implied remedy from the statute. Significant is the existence of the parallel civil provision to ORS 607.045(1)  ORS 607.044. In ORS 607.044, the legislature did provide a recovery to those injured by livestock running at large upon their land but did not to those injured in collisions with livestock running at large upon a highway. The legislature has spoken to statutory civil liability in this area. We cannot, on our own, create what the legislature has chosen to forego. Plaintiff cannot recover on the basis of statutory liability for his alleged injuries. We turn to whether he may recover on the basis of common law negligence.