Opinion ID: 885241
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Exclusion of statutory herd districts

Text: ถ 54 Under Part 3 of Montana's Containment of Livestock statutes, the Montana Legislature has permitted landowners to exempt a particular area of land from the open range. See ง 81-4-301, MCA (stating requirements for herd district creation); ง 81-4-322, MCA (stating requirements for horse herd districts). This exemption is not absolute; such a district may be in effect for only certain months of the year. See ง 81-4-305, MCA. ถ 55 Critical to our discussion is the fact that the term fence (legal or otherwise) does not appear once under this Part in any form, nor did the Legislature include any reference to highways and motorists. See งง 81-4-301 through 328, MCA. Further, aside from the horse herd district statutes, the more general herd district laws prohibit only willful acts. See ง 81-4-306, MCA (providing penalty to owner who willfully permits the animals to run at large). [4] See also Jenkins v. Valley Garden Ranch, Inc. (1968), 151 Mont. 463, 466-67, 443 P.2d 753, 755 (equating willfully with purposely or knowingly and concluding that escaped cattle did not result from willful act). Thus, similar to ง 81-4-201 through 220, MCA, the herd district statutes do not explicitly contemplate that a livestock owner whose animal accidentally escapes from the owner's premises commits a per se violation of the statute, or that livestock may lawfully occupy roads within herd districts under the care of herders. ถ 56 In light of these omissions, and of particular relevance to the action here, this Court's decision in Williams v. Selstad (1988), 235 Mont. 137, 766 P.2d 247, addressed whether herd districts under งง 81-4-301 through 328, MCA, provided an exception to Montana's open range doctrine. Specifically, the Court addressed whether the statutes imposed a duty on livestock owners to keep livestock from wandering onto the roadway within the herd district . Williams, 235 Mont. at 139, 766 P.2d at 248. Ultimately, we held that the Legislature did not intend to change the open range no-duty rules through enactment of the herd district statutes. Williams, 235 Mont. at 141, 766 P.2d at 249. ถ 57 This holding, however, was premised on the assumption that the open range doctrine relieves owners or possessors of livestock of a duty to keep their livestock from wandering onto the roadway, which in turn inferentially applied the no duty standard to livestock owners whose animals are involved with accidents with motorists. Williams, 235 Mont. at 138, 766 P.2d at 247-48. ถ 58 With the enactment of herd district statutes, pursuant to งง 81-4-301 through 328, MCA, the open range doctrine rule that livestock may follow their instincts, and freely wander in search of food and water, came to an end once such a district was created. If owners of livestock are statutorily proscribed from permitting their animals to run at large, then the notion that the owner of livestock has no duty to prevent the livestock from wandering no longer exists. Compare ง 81-4-306, MCA (prohibiting any livestock owner from willfully permitting animals to run at large within herd district) with Bartsch, 149 Mont. at 409, 427 P.2d at 305 (stating that an owner of livestock has no duty to prevent livestock from wandering in open range country). In turn, if the open range includes all highways outside private enclosures used by the public, as we have already concluded, then highways passing through herd districts are no longer part of the open range, as a matter of law, during those periods when the herd district is in effect. ถ 59 Again, there is no express broadening of the underlying legal relationship that the open range doctrine addresses: livestock owners and landowners. Rather, as a matter of law, herd districts are no longer open range, and therefore the open range fence-out rule is no longer required to maintain an action for trespass, which ostensibly returns such districts to the common law trespass rule during those periods when they are in effect. See ง 81-4-307, MCA (entitled Trespassing animals in herd districts and permitting the owner of premises wrongfully entered by animals referred to in ง 81-4-306, MCA, to recover damages and costs, with no mention of legal fence requirement). ถ 60 Thus, the Court in Williams correctly stated that the herd district statutes were intended only to protect landowners and owners of livestock. Williams, 235 Mont. at 140, 766 P.2d at 248. In turn, the Court also was correct in its conclusion that it was not clear whether Montana's Legislature intended to create a duty owed to motorists through enactment of the herd district statutes, Williams, 235 Mont. at 140, 766 P.2d at 248, and thus such a duty may not be judicially inserted by this Court. See ง 1-2-101, MCA. The Court incorrectly assumed, however, that the open range doctrine's no duty rule that applied exclusively to livestock owners and landowners inferentially applied to the legal relationship between livestock owners and motorists โ an assumption that the statutes simply fail to address. ถ 61 Therefore, we overrule Williams v. Selstad to the extent that it holds that the open range doctrine no duty rule may be applied to the legal relationship between livestock owners within a herd district and motorists traveling on herd district highways. We further hold, however, that the herd district statutes, similar to the running at large statutes discussed above, do not establish an explicit legal duty owed by livestock owners to motorists beyond the inferential duty to not intentionally permit certain animals to run at large within the districts โ which, again, does not include negligent conduct. Rather, we conclude that the herd district statutes โ like the running at large statutes โ establish a different standard of care for owners of livestock from that found in open range areas: in open range, certain animals may be lawfully permitted to occupy highways, in herd districts none may be lawfully permitted to run at large on highways.