Opinion ID: 885241
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Exclusion of statutorily designated state highways.

Text: ถ 62 Similar to the running at large and herd district statutes, our Legislature in 1951 removed certain state highways from the open range โ again, without invoking any explicit statutory duties arising from the legal relationship of livestock owners and motorists. The Legislature merely made it unlawful for livestock owners to use certain U.S. and state highways as a place for the pasturage or running of livestock. See Ch. 95, L.1951. Codified under งง 32-1018-1020, RCM, the statutes were originally inserted under the obstructions and encroachments chapter of the Highways, Bridges and Ferries statutes. ถ 63 Unlike the running at large and herd district statutes, however, traffic safety on such highways can reasonably be presumed as one of the purposes of what would eventually become งง 60-7-201 through 205, MCA. [5] Nevertheless, there was never an explicit legal duty, or a standard of liability, ascribed to livestock owners that was owed to motorists. See and compare, e.g., ง 49-4-216, MCA (describing duty and civil liability of pedestrian or driver approaching blind person); ง 61-5-108, MCA (describing liability of minors imputed to parents under motor vehicles statute); ง 61-6-201, MCA (describing liability of owner for negligence of employee driver); ง 61-7-106, MCA (describing duty of a driver of any vehicle which collides with any vehicle which is unattended); ง 61-7-107, MCA (describing duty of driver of any vehicle involved in an accident upon striking fixtures or other property upon a highway); ง 61-8-384, MCA (describing liability of operator of a vehicle in a funeral procession). ถ 64 Moreover, as originally codified, a violation occurred only if the livestock owner acted wilfully, which first required that 24-hours' written notice be given to the owner by a peace officer informing the owner of the presence of his animals on the highway, or a finding that the owner habitually permits such use of such highway by livestock. See Ch. 95, L.1951. Otherwise, as originally conceived, there was no immediate legal duty owed by livestock owners to other highway users; rather, livestock could occupy a fenced highway traveled by motorist up until written notice was provided, or the livestock's presence on a highway was deemed habitual. ถ 65 Today, ง 60-7-201, MCA, is far less lenient. An owner of livestock now may not lawfully permit his livestock to graze, remain upon, or occupy a part of the right-of-way of: (1) a state highway running through cultivated areas or a part of the fenced right-of-way of a state highway if in either case the highway has been designated by agreement between the transportation commission and the secretary of transportation as a part of the national system of interstate and defense highways; or (2) a state highway designated by agreement between the transportation commission and the secretary of transportation as a part of the federal-aid primary system, except as provided in 60-7-202. Under this statute, this Court has held that livestock owners in Montana may now be found liable for negligent rather than wilful conduct which results in the presence of their cattle on the right-of-ways, but cannot be held strictly liable. Ambrogini v. Todd (1982), 197 Mont. 111, 120, 642 P.2d 1013, 1018 (construing the term permit subsequent to a legislative amendment that excised the term wilful). Nevertheless, the Legislature expressly provided that even if a livestock owner violates ง 60-7-201, MCA, there is no presumption or inference that the collision was due to negligence on the part of the owner or the person in possession of the livestock or the driver or owner of the vehicle. See ง 60-7-203, MCA. ถ 66 Further, under ง 60-7-202, MCA, the prohibitions of ง 60-7-201, MCA, do not apply to the following: (1) livestock on state highways under the charge of one or more herders; (2) the parts of fenced highways adjacent to open range where a highway device has not been installed to exclude range livestock; and (3) the parts of a state highway or a part of the federal-aid primary system which the department of transportation designates as being impracticable to exclude livestock. ถ 67 In Ambrogini, this Court determined that because none of the foregoing exceptions applied to the facts, the livestock owner, Todd, had a legal duty to exercise due care in preventing his livestock from wandering on Highway 10. Ambrogini, 197 Mont. at 121, 642 P.2d at 1019. After reviewing the facts of the livestock's escape from the defendant's premises, we further concluded that [t]he reasonableness of Todd's conduct is for a jury to decide and therefore reversed the district court's summary judgment in his favor. Ambrogini, 197 Mont. at 121, 642 P.2d at 1019. ถ 68 Thus, under the explicit terms of the foregoing statutes, an owner of livestock may not permit his livestock to freely wander on certain clearly defined state highways that, prior to enactment, may once have been part of the open range. Nevertheless, under certain circumstances, livestock may lawfully occupy such highways without violating the grazing of livestock on highways statutes. Accordingly, establishing a standard of reasonable care for livestock owners in their legal relationship with motorists on such highways is a fact-driven, circumstance-specific inquiry that is merely assisted by a proven violation of ง 60-7-201, MCA.