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

Heading: The State's General Duty to Keep Highways Reasonably Safe

Text: The appellants did not assert before the District Court that the State's general duty to keep highways reasonably safe imposed a duty on the State relative to livestock. On appeal, however, they urge us to extend the State's general duty to include a specific duty requiring the State to prevent livestock from wandering onto the highway. Appellants rely on a number of sources for the State's general duty. They contend that the State is required to maintain the fence along the right-of-way under its general duty to keep the highways reasonably safe, citing Buck v. State (1986), 222 Mont. 423, 429, 723 P.2d 210, 214. The Yagers also base the State's general duty on its ownership of the right-of-way. They contend that property owners, including governmental entities, have a duty to maintain their property in a reasonably safe condition, relying on Kaiser v. Town of Whitehall (1986), 221 Mont. 322, 718 P.2d 1341, and Limberhand v. Big Ditch Co. (1985), 218 Mont. 132, 706 P.2d 491. Additionally, Deane relies on State ex rel. Byorth v. District Court (1977), 175 Mont. 63, 572 P.2d 201, as a source for the general duty. While we do not disagree that the State has a general duty to keep highways in a reasonably safe condition, we decline to expand that duty to impose a new duty to prevent livestock from reaching interstate highways. Montana has been, and continues to be, an open range state. See State ex rel. Martin v. Finley (1987), 227 Mont. 242, 738 P.2d 497. Under the open range doctrine, neither the State nor livestock owners have a duty to prevent livestock from wandering onto roadways. However, due to the increase in motor travel and in an effort to protect the motoring public, the Montana legislature has passed two carefully crafted exceptions to the doctrine. Id. The State Department of Highways is required to fence certain rights-of-way pursuant to §§ 60-7-101 et seq., MCA. Sections 60-7-201 et seq., MCA, make it unlawful for a livestock owner to allow livestock to graze or occupy certain rights-of-way. As discussed above, the District Court determined that § 60-7-103, MCA, did not impose a duty on the State to fence livestock off the highway on the facts before it; appellants do not argue otherwise. In Martin, we declined to impose duties on a livestock owner which were not specifically created by the Montana legislature via statutory provisions governing fencing of the open range. There, the State and others sought to enjoin livestock owners from allowing livestock to wander beyond their property. The plaintiffs claimed that the wandering livestock constituted a public nuisance pursuant to § 45-8-111, MCA, by interfering with the enjoyment of their property and posing a hazardous driving condition. We discussed the open range doctrine and set forth the statutory exceptions which impose liability on livestock owners for certain negligent conduct relating to their livestock and require the State to fence certain rights-of-way. We concluded that neither of the two carefully crafted statutory exceptions to the open range doctrine required the livestock owner to restrain his livestock and that case law imposed no such duty. Martin, 738 P.2d at 498-99. As a result, we declined to apply the general public nuisance statute to impose an additional duty not provided for in the specific open range provisions. We reach the same result here. We decline to apply the State's general duty to keep its property in a reasonably safe condition, as articulated in Kaiser and Limberhand, or its general duty to keep its highways in a reasonably safe condition, as enunciated in Buck and Byorth, to specifically require the State to prevent livestock from wandering onto the interstate highway. Where the Montana legislature has acted to define the duty of the State relative to livestock on roadways, we will not impose an additional duty, the source of which is extraneous to the statutory provisions governing the fencing of the open range. Appellants contend that the District Court misapplied Buck in determining that the State's general duty did not impose a duty on the State to maintain the fence. The court acknowledged that the State's general duty to keep highways in a reasonably safe condition extended to the paved portions of the roadway and to the shoulders and adjacent parts of the roadway under Buck. The court reasoned, however, that the fence was well off the paved or shoulder portions of the highway and, therefore, that the State had no duty to maintain it. We do not disagree with appellants' contention that the District Court failed to connect their argument on fencing to the adjacent parts language in Buck. However, we find no basis in Buck to impose a duty on the State to maintain the fence. In Buck, the driver failed to negotiate a curve in the highway and went off the left hand side of the pavement. As the driver attempted to return the vehicle to the roadway, the vehicle collided with a bridge abutment. We concluded that the State's duty to keep its highways in a reasonably safe condition extended to the shoulders and the adjacent parts thereof. Buck, 723 P.2d at 214. In relying on this language to support a duty by the State with regard to fencing, however, appellants fail to recognize that the extension of the State's general duty in Buck specifically was premised on the common experience that vehicles may stray or swerve from the usual traveled portion of the roadway. Id. Here, Yager did not stray from the usually traveled path and encounter an unreasonably unsafe condition on an adjacent part of the roadway. Thus, the Buck language relied on by appellants is inapplicable here. Finally, appellants assert that the District Court erroneously relied on Whitfield v. Therriault Corp. (1987), 229 Mont. 195, 745 P.2d 1126, and Ambrogini v. Todd (1982), 197 Mont. 111, 642 P.2d 1013, to support its determination that the State's general duty did not require it to prevent livestock from gaining access to the highway. Those cases are, indeed, distinguishable on their facts from the present case and, therefore, are not controlling on the issue of the State's duty to prevent livestock from wandering onto the particular roadway here. Whitfield and Ambrogini do reflect, however, our consistent refusal to impose a duty on the State or livestock owners relative to fencing livestock off roadways that is not specifically created by the legislature.