Opinion ID: 885241
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Exclusion of certain animals

Text: ถ 49 Montana's Legislature has, over time, amended the open range Containment of Livestock statutes to prohibit owners from allowing certain kinds of animals to run at large. See ง 81-4-201, MCA (prohibiting swine, sheep, llamas, alpacas, bison, ostriches, rheas, emus, and goats from running at large); ง 81-4-204, MCA (prohibiting male equine from running at large on the open range); ง 81-4-210, MCA (prohibiting any kind of bull that is not purebred, and any bull between December 1 and June 1 of each and every year from running at large upon any such public highways, open range, or national forest reserve); ง 81-4-211, MCA (prohibiting female breeding cattle unaccompanied by a purebred bull from running at large upon the public ranges or national forest reserves). See also Jorgenson v. Story (1927), 78 Mont. 477, 493, 254 P. 427, 432 (stating that when cattle are in the public highway, in charge of a person directing or controlling their movements, they are not `running at large'). ถ 50 The foregoing statutes are accompanied by penalties, including monetary fines, liability for damages to any party injured by the violation, castration of the offending animal, and even killing of the offending animal. See งง 81-4-202, 207, 208, 209 and 212, MCA. Thus, any trespass resulting from the intentional act of permitting such animals to run at large waives the fence-out condition precedent of the open range doctrine. See ง 81-4-217, MCA (allowing retention of wrongfully trespassing animal as well as those breaking through legal fences); ง 81-4-215, MCA (providing that [t]his section may not be construed to require a legal fence in order to maintain an action for injury done by animals running at large contrary to law). ถ 51 Further, the monetary penalty under ง 81-4-202, MCA, as well as the damages to any party injured language expanded the scope of the open range doctrine to provide a benefit for the general public, not just a landowner who suffers damages as a result of a trespass. Nevertheless, the conduct proscribed under งง 81-4-201, 204, 210 and 211, MCA, is explicitly intentional. Thus, an accidental escape of one of the animals identified under these statutes from an owner's premises is not a per se violation. As made clear by this Court in Monroe, and the U.S. Supreme Court in Lazarus, the open range doctrine, as a modification of the common law, never included intentional conduct. See Monroe, 24 Mont. at 324-26, 61 P. at 865-66. ถ 52 Finally, liberally construing Part 2 of our Containment of Livestock statutes as a whole, it is clear that open range includes all highways or public highways that pass through open range areas. See ง 81-4-203, MCA (providing that the term open range includes all lands in the state of Montana not enclosed by a fence of not less than two wires in good repair as well as all highways outside of private enclosures and used by the public); [3] ง 81-4-210, MCA (providing that non-purebred bulls, and all bulls between December 1 and June 1 shall not be turned upon or allowed to run at large on public highways, open range, or national forest reserve within the state). ถ 53 Even so, we conclude that these statutes offer no clear enunciation of any explicit legal duty owed by livestock owners to motorists beyond the inferential duty to not intentionally permit certain animals to occupy highways, which does not include negligent conduct. Therefore, the running at large statutes, under a negligence theory, at the most establish a different standard of care for owners of certain livestock from that required in open range areas: in open range, certain animals may be lawfully permitted to occupy highways, and other animals may not. Again, the only clear legal duty addressed by the foregoing is that between livestock owners and landowners.