Opinion ID: 2635849
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: public thoroughfare

Text: ¶ 18 We next consider whether trespassing may constitute a public use pursuant to the Dedication Statute. The Butlers argue that some trespassers should not be considered members of the public for purposes of determining whether a road was continuously used as a public thoroughfare. Specifically, they contend that trespassers who knowingly use a private road without permissionin other words, criminal trespassers [26] are not members of the public for purposes of the Dedication Statute. They contend that only persons who use a road without knowledge of its private statusindividuals they call good faith trespassersare members of the public capable of continuously using a road as a public thoroughfare. The court of appeals rejected the Butlers' arguments and agree[d] with the trial court that trespassers are members of the `public' for purposes of determining whether the Dedication Statute has been satisfied. [27] ¶ 19 We have explained that certain persons are not members of the public for purposes of the Dedication Statute. Individuals with a private right to use a road, such as adjoining property owners who may have documentary or prescriptive rights to use the road, are not members of the public, nor are those who have been given permission to use a road. [28] But other than these two classes of individuals, we have not otherwise defined who constitutes the public for purposes of the Dedication Statute. To determine whether trespassers constitute members of the public for purposes of the statute, we must ascertain the intent of the legislature. [29] This we do by evaluating the `best evidence' of legislative intent, namely, `the plain language of the statute itself.' [30] ¶ 20 Here, the Dedication Statute does not reference or imply the character of the use required of the user, only that users be members of the public. The public is commonly understood to be the people as a whole. [31] The plain language of the statute does not exclude trespassers, including criminal trespassers, from the class of persons who constitute the public. All trespassers are therefore public users capable of continuously using a road for purposes of dedication. We affirm the court of appeals' conclusion in this regard. [32] ¶ 21 Although we conclude that trespassers can establish a public highway, we stress that a road owner can preclude a finding of continuous use established by trespassers by providing credible evidence of an overt act intended and reasonably calculated to interrupt the use of the road as a public thoroughfare. For example, if a road owner erects and locks for several days at a time a gate across a road for the purpose of blocking public use, this act will restart the ten-year period and preclude a finding of continuous use even if someone jumps the gate or removes the lock and criminally trespasses on the road. Proper action by a road owner can interrupt continuous use by the public regardless of whether the persons using the road are criminal or good faith trespassers.