Court Opinion

ID: 9552737
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 19:15:46.681825+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:28:45.826443
License: Public Domain

Smith, J.
(dissenting): I find myself unable to concur in the *316opinion of the majority. I choose to place my dissent on the effect to be given G. S. 1935, 47-122 and 47-123. In my opinion, it is a mistake to consider these sections in connection with the herd laws or to apply our herd law decisions to them. They- are a separate branch of the law and should be so treated.
We are all familiar with the story of the struggle that went on in this country, especially in the western states between the farmers who desired to till the soil and raise crops on the one hand and those who used the open range on the other. At first, the stock raisers had their way, with the enactment of the fence laws, chapter 78, Laws of 1859, and chapter 40 of the Laws of 1868. Almost simultaneously, however, the crop raisers brought about the enactment of chapter 65 of the Laws for the special session of 1857, making the owners of swine permitted to run at-large liable to the person upon whose land they should trespass. These enactments included chapter 193 of the Laws of 1872, which is carried on our books as G. S. 1935, 47-301 to 47-313, and is designated in our statute books as the “herd law.” The point is, the question was a live one in the legislature from the time of the settlement of our state during the seventies. A definite legislative policy was being created but by the end of the seventies by confining definite, final action to counties the policy was established county by county. The legislature thereby solved a vexatious problem with a minimum of controversy. The change came about on account of a change and development in the husbandry of our farmers. Growing crops became more generally the mainstay of the farmers year by year. No marked change in the practices of our farmers and stockmen occurred from the date of the last enactment of any amendments to the herd law and 1929. As a matter of fact, we all know the herd law had been adopted in practically all our counties by that date.
There had been another change, however, in the economy and entire way of life of our people. It came in the field of transportation. By 1929 it was well under way. The perfection of the gasoline engine changed the entire picture. The farmer, whose father was content to take all of Saturday afternoon for the trip to town, now frets if he has to wait five minutes at a filling station. The city people buzz gaily from point to point, interested only in getting somewhere else as quickly as possible. A large part of our commerce moves in trucks passing by the farmers’ corrals and pastures. The state has given its approval by building mile after mile of hard surface highways. Where a fast trotter would take the top buggy *317along the highway at the alarming speed of a mile in two or three minutes we now drive sixty horses under the hood of an automobile at a rate so that fifty miles an hour impedes traffic.
The revolution in transportation has caused a new and vexing problem near our three metropolitan centers — Kansas City, Wichita and Topeka. People whose place of business is in the city live sometimes at a distance with a result of traffic congestion. Under such circumstances it is clear to me that the legislature enacted chapter 211 of the Laws of 1929 for the benefit of travelers upon the highway.
A breach of statutory duty is a form of negligence so long as the injury complained of is one the statute was designed to prevent. (Roman v. St. Louis-S. F. Rly. Co., 120 Kan. 585, 245 Pac. 115.) Such a violation has been said to be negligence per se so long as it appears that the violation caused the injury complained of. (Williams v. Electric Railroad Co., 102 Kan. 268, 170 Pac. 397; Martin v. Shell Petroleum Corp., 133 Kan. 124, 299 Pac. 261.)
Once we reach that' conclusion it seems inescapable that the statute should be given a construction that would render it of some benefit to the traveling public. Suppose a driver of an automobile collides with a loose horse or mule or other animal upon the highway, perhaps he is passing through the state, perhaps he lives in a remote part of the state. How on earth is he going to prove the animal escaped because of the negligence of its owner? The matter is singularly within the knowledge of the person in whose custody the animal was. The construction put upon the statute by the majority renders it of no avail. In McAllister v. Fair, 72 Kan. 533, 84 Pac. 112, we said:
“The right to determine what is the best policy for the people is in the legislature, and courts cannot assume that they have a wisdom superior to that of the legislature and proceed to inject into a statute a clause which, in their opinion, would be more in consonance with good morals or better accomplish justice than the rule declared by the legislature.”
G. S. 1935", 47-101 provides that under certain conditions owners shall keep stock confined in the nighttime. Section 47-105 provides that no bull or boar shall be permitted to run at large. Section 47-107 provides a fine for the owner of any stallion or jack who permits them to run at large. Section 47-111 provides a penalty for the owner permitting any ram to run at large. Section 47-112 requires the owner of any swine to keep them from running at large.
As remarked heretofore, the herd law, G. S. 1935, 47-301 to 47-*318313, provides in the first section that the boards of county commissioners under certain circumstances shall have power to direct by order what animals shall not be allowed to run at large. In all those sections the words “allowed to run at large” or “permit to run at large” are used. We can see why that language was used. Up until the time those statutes were enacted people could turn their stock loose to graze whenever the grass looked green. The only thing the owner had to worry about was whether the stock should break down a fence and trespass-upon a field. By the passage of those acts the legislature sought to change that — hence the use of the verbs “permit” and “allow” meaning some action on the part of the owner.
These two sections we are considering do not use these words. The one says it shall be unlawful for stock to run at large, nothing more, nothing about “permitting” or “allowing,” nothing in that section about the owner. The next section says first “Any person whose animals shall run at large.” The majority opinion has the effect of amending this section by inserting after the word “person” the words “who shall allow his stock to run at large.” To me, it seems without question the legislature intended to provide that proof that stock was unattended anywhere and that damage resulted therefrom would make a prima facie case against the owners. The language of the statute says just that. We get the majority view by construing the words “run at large” without considering the words “permit” or “allow” in the one line of statutes, and their absence in another. The legislature enacted that sort of a statute for a purpose. I am convinced the purpose was to have a statute that would afford travelers on the highway some protection. As construed by the majority opinion, this purpose is stricken down. I realize the force to be attached to our opinions construing the herd law, especially the words “running at large.” A consideration of the situation existing at the time they were written will be helpful. Chapter 94, Laws of. 1874, now G. S. 1935, 66-295, made railroad companies liable for stock killed, irrespective of the negligence of the railroad. About the only defense the railroad had was contributory negligence on the part of the owner of the stock. The railroads were prompt to raise the point that in herd law counties the mere fact the stock was loose or unconfined made its owner guilty of contributory negligence so as to bar recovery. In dealing with this argument we announced the rule that reasonable precaution was all that was required of the owner of stock under the herd law. We were considering, however, a statute that used the words “allowed *319to run at large” not just “run at large” as we have here. What the court tried to do in those cases was what the minority is trying to do here, that is, give the statute a construction that will enablé it to accomplish the end desired by the legislature. It is our duty to do so. See Russell v. Cogswell, 151 Kan. 793, 101 P. 2d 361, where we said:
“A liberal construction of statutes in order to effectuate their purpose is the established policy of this court. The function of liberal construction is called into use where there is ambiguity in fhe language of the statute or, in other words, where there are one or more interpretations which may fairly be made. Where clarification is required judicial interpretation is made that will give life to the statute rather than the one which will nullify it.”
Of course if the railroad viewpoint had prevailed no farmer could have ever recovered for stock killed since it would never be on a railroad track unless it was loose from one cause or another.
In conclusion, I want to make it clear that this statute in my opinion did change the rule as to liability of owners of stock. There can be no doubt about that. The entire matter is one of proof, however. To me, this statute makes the rule as to stock somewhat analogous to the liability of a bailee, as treated by us in Strange v. Price Auto & Service Co., opinion filed May 6, 1950. There we held that proof a bailor had left property with a bailee to be repaired and that the bailee was unable to return it when due, placed the duty on the bailee to go forward with evidence to show the inability to return was not due to his failure to exercise due care. As pointed out in many opinions, the rule springs from the fact that the cause of failure of a bailee to return property was peculiarly within his knowledge. Here the legislature, no doubt, knew the holdings of the court as to liability of owners of stock to travelers upon the highways. It was the intention of the legislature to create a new liability. It is a remedial statute. (See 36 Words & Phrases, 825; Gray v. Bennett, 44 Mass. [3 Metc.] 522, 527; People v. Hays, 4 Cal. 127, 137; and State, ex rel., v. Zangerle, 133 Ohio St. 532, 14 N. E. 2d 932.) Statutes of a remedial nature are entitled to a liberal construction in furtherance of the remedy and in favor of those to which the benefits of the statute inure. (See Withers v. Miller, 140 Kan. 123, 34 P. 2d 110; White v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Rly. Co., 125 Kan. 537, 265 Pac. 73; 50 Am. Jur. 415.
In my opinion, the evidence of the plaintiff established a prima facie case against the defendant and the trial court should have overruled defendant’s demurrer to it.