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

Heading: Did the District Court err in denying summary judgment to the Steiners?

Text: ถ 109 The District Court denied the Steiners' motion for summary judgment on two separate occasions, and a motion for reconsideration, all of which address similar issues of law. ถ 110 In the District Court's October 29, 1996 Order, the court determined that [i]f an area is not open range, there is a duty to maintain legal fences and keep livestock off the roadways, pursuant to Indendi v. Workman (1995), 272 Mont. 64, 899 P.2d 1085, and ง 60-7-102, MCA. The court stated that whether Defendants violated the legal fencing statute, and whether such a violation constitutes negligence per se are questions of fact. The court concluded that the defendants failed to establish they lacked a duty to maintain legal fences and keep livestock off Hoskin road. ถ 111 Pursuant to our discussion here, we conclude that the denial of the defendants' motion for summary judgment was proper. Although the Steiners had no duty to maintain a legal fence, pursuant to ง 81-4-201, MCA, they nevertheless had a common law duty to exercise control of their livestock to a particular standard of conduct in order to protect motorists, as foreseeable plaintiffs, against unreasonable risks of harm under the circumstances โ whether within a herd district or on open range. See ง 27-1-701, MCA. ถ 112 It is undisputed that the accident occurred within a herd district, which was in effect at the time. Therefore, the Steiners' bull, which was at large, was not lawfully occupying the highway at the time of the accident, because the highway in question was not open range. Thus, the question of what was a reasonable standard of care under the circumstances โ where an animal escapes an owner's premises in a herd district โ is a fact-specific inquiry. As the court acknowledged disputed issues of material fact remain. Namely, those facts pertaining to how the bull escaped from the premises, and what steps the Steiners had taken, or should have taken, in light of the risk involved, remained in dispute at the time the court rendered its decision. ถ 113 The District Court's January 6, 1997 Order denying the Steiners' motion to reconsider is affirmed under the same rationale. ถ 114 Finally, the District Court's November 19, 1997 Order again turned on the legal question of whether the accident occurred in open range, and thus whether or not the Steiners owed a legal duty to Larson-Murphy. The court concluded that the accident did not occur in open range. We affirm this conclusion. Ultimately, the court's denial of the Steiners' motion turned on the disputed fact of which fence was relevant: the triangular pasture where the Steiners placed the bull, or the perimeter fence near Hoskin Road. ถ 115 Disregarding questions of law, we again affirm the order denying the Steiners' motion for summary judgment. Obviously, material facts regarding which fence was or was not properly maintained, the condition of the gates on the property, and how these conditions relate to the reasonable care required in preventing a black bull from obstructing a highway at night in a herd district remained in dispute at the time of the court's decision.