Opinion ID: 882912
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Right-of-Way Purchase Agreement

Text: The Yagers' final contention is that the State assumed a duty to maintain the fence when it purchased the right-of-way. In support of this contention, the Yagers appended documents entitled Highway Right of Way Easement and Agreement to Fence to their brief opposing summary judgment in the District Court, and to their brief to this Court. The District Court did not consider the appended documents; nor did it address whether the State assumed a duty to maintain the fence when it purchased the right-of-way. The Yagers contend that the documents were properly before the District Court because they had been obtained from the Highway Department during discovery. However, when addressing a motion for summary judgment, a district court considers only discovery that is on file. Rule 56(c), M.R.Civ.P. The Yagers failed to file the documents; on that basis, the District Court's failure to address them or the issue for which they were appended was appropriate. We join the District Court in declining to address an issue lacking proper support in the record. Appellants have failed to cite any authority imposing a duty on the State to prevent livestock from wandering on, or to erect or maintain a fence along, the section of the interstate highway where the accident occurred. Absent a duty, there can be no negligence. We hold that the District Court did not err in granting the State's motion for summary judgment. Affirmed. CHIEF JUSTICE TURNAGE, JUSTICES WEBER and McDONOUGH concur.