Opinion ID: 885241
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Exclusion of intentional conduct

Text: ถ 46 By the turn of the century the west's open range doctrine was narrowed, excluding all but accidental trespasses from the statutory fence-out rule. In Montana, the modification followed a U.S. Supreme Court decision, Lazarus v. Phelps , which arose in Texas. The Lazarus decision essentially waived the fence-out condition precedent in cases where the trespass was intentional, reasoning that the open range doctrine applied narrowly only to those trespasses that were accidental โ where livestock merely followed the inherent instinct to seek food and water. See Lazarus, 152 U.S. at 85, 14 S.Ct. at 478. See also Fant, 9 Mont. at 61-62, 22 P. at 120-21 (indicating that willful or malicious herding of sheep onto plaintiff's land by owner would exempt plaintiff from lawful fence requirement). ถ 47 This narrowing of the doctrine was followed by this Court in 1900, in Monroe v. Cannon (1900), 24 Mont. 316, 61 P. 863. In that case, it was undisputed that the plaintiff's land was not fenced. Nevertheless, the Court affirmed the plaintiff's right to recovery for damages where the defendant had willfully or maliciously herded his sheep onto the plaintiff's land. See Monroe, 24 Mont. at 324-26, 61 P. at 865-66 (following Lazarus v.. Phelps , and distinguishing Smith v. Williams and Fant v. Lyman ). ถ 48 Thus, at the start of the 20th century in Montana, livestock trespasses resulting from willful, malicious, or even negligent conduct by the livestock owner followed the English common law rule and waived the lawful fence requirement, leaving only purely accidental livestock trespasses under the open range doctrine, which required a lawful fence in order to recover damages. See, e.g., Bartsch, 149 Mont. at 409, 427 P.2d at 305 (providing that willful or intentional herding or driving of livestock onto another's unfenced land or placing them so near that trespass is bound to occur is an exception to the open range doctrine) (quoting Montgomery v. Gehring (1965), 145 Mont. 278, 283, 400 P.2d 403, 406); Andes, 56 Mont.L.Rev. at 488-93 (discussing narrow application of open range doctrine under Lazarus to include only accidental trespass of livestock); ง 1-2-103, MCA (providing that statutes in derogation of the common law establish the law of this state respecting the subjects to which they relate and should be liberally construed to effect their objects) (emphasis added).