Ambrogini v. Todd

I N THE SUPREME COURT O T E STATE O MONTANA
F H F

No. 81-266

JAMES V. AMBROGINI and
ROBERT D. FLINT,

P l a i n t i f f s and A p p e l l a n t s ,

S N Y TODD, THE STATE O MONTANA
O N F
and MONTANA STATE DEPARTMENT OF
HIGHWAYS,

D e f e n d a n t s and Respondents.

O R D E R

PER CURIAM:

I T I S ORDERED t h a t t h e f o u r t h s e n t e n c e of t h e t h i r d

p a r a g r a p h of t h e F e b r u a r y 2 5 , 1981, o p i n i o n i n t h i s m a t t e r

b e amended t o s t a t e : " A f e n c e was c o n s t r u c t e d and a r o p e

g a t e i n s t a l l e d a p p r o x i m a t e l y mid-way up t h e l a n e t o t h e Todd

ranch. "

I T I S FURTHER ORDERED t h a t t h e second s e n t e n c e o f t h e

f o u r t h p a r a g r a p h o f t h e same o p i n i o n b e amended t o s t a t e :

"The r o p e g a t e mid-way up t h e l a n e w a s a n u i s a n c e t o h i s

customers."

W I T H THIS AMENDMENT o f t h e f a c t s , t h e P e t i t i o n f o r a

R e h e a r i n g of t h i s m a t t e r i s d e n i e d .

DATED t h i s 1 5 t h day o f A p r i l , 1982.

Chief J u s t i c e
g,-$& .. -
 No. 81-266
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

JAMES V. AMBROGINI and
ROBERT D. FLINT,
Plaintiffs and Appellants,

SONNY TODD, THE STATE OF MONTANA
and MONTANA STATE DEPARTmNT OF
HIGHWAYS,
Defendants and Respondents.

Appeal from: District Court of the Sixth Judicial District,
In and for the County of Sweet Grass
Honorable Jack D. Shanstrom, Judge presiding.
Counsel of Record:
For Appellants:
Gregory 0 Morgan, Bozeman, Montana
.

For Respondents:
Landoe, Brown, Planalp, Kommers and Lineberger,
Bozeman, Montana
J. Daniel Hoven, Office of Attorney General, Helena,
Montana

Submitted on briefs: November 18, 1981
~ecided: February 25, 1982
Mr. J u s t i c e Frank B. M o r r i s o n , J r . , d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion
of t h e C o u r t .

The p l a i n t i f f s , James Ambrogini and R o b e r t F l i n t , a p p e a l

from summary judgment e n t e r e d by t h e S i x t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t

C o u r t i n f a v o r of b o t h d e f e n d a n t s , Sonny Todd and t h e Montana

Department of Highways.

On May 3, 1979, F l i n t was d r i v i n g a t r u c k owned by

Ambrogini when i t c o l l i d e d w i t h two angus h e i f e r c a l v e s on

Highway 10. The c a l v e s were owned by Todd. I n November of
1979, t h e p l a i n t i f f s f i l e d s e p a r a t e a c t i o n s a g a i n s t d e f e n d a n t

Todd a l l e g i n g t h a t Todd's n e g l i g e n c e had caused t h e c o l l i s i o n .

The c o m p l a i n t s w e r e amended i n A p r i l , 1980, t o i n c l u d e t h e

S t a t e of Montana and t h e Montana Department of Highways as

defendants. These c l a i m s have s i n c e been c o n s o l i d a t e d .

The f a c t s a r e u n d i s p u t e d . I n 1936, t h e S t a t e of Montana

a c q u i r e d a highway right-of-way easement from t h e p r i o r

owners of t h e Todd r a n c h . The S t a t e p a i d t h e p r i o r owners

$323.75 t o c o n s t r u c t a f e n c e a l o n g Highway 1 0 . A f e n c e was

c o n s t r u c t e d and a s t o c k g a t e i n s t a l l e d a t t h e l a n e e n t r a n c e .

Through t h e y e a r s , t h e f e n c e h a s been m a i n t a i n e d by t h e

owners of what i s now known a s t h e Todd r a n c h .

Todd s e l l s c a t t l e and h o r s e s . The s t o c k g a t e a t t h e

l a n e entrance w a s a nuisance t o h i s customers. Todd d i d n o t

wish t o r e p l a c e t h e s t o c k g a t e w i t h a c a t t l e g u a r d due t o

h a z a r d s posed t o h o r s e s . T h e r e f o r e , h e removed t h e s t o c k

g a t e and l i n e d t h e e n t i r e one hundred y a r d l o n g l a n e w i t h a

mesh f e n c e topped w i t h barbed w i r e and wooden p o s t s . Todd

a l s o i n s t a l l e d a g a t e l e a d i n g from t h e l a n e i n t o t h e p a r k i n g

l o t and turn-around a r e a used by h i s c u s t o m e r s . Todd t e s t i -

f i e d t h a t s i n c e t h e e n t i r e l a n d and l a n e were f e n c e d , h e

f e l t t h e r e t o b e no need t o i n s t a l l a s t o c k c o n t r o l l i n g
d e v i c e a t t h e highway e n t r a n c e t o t h e l a n e . In fact, the

l a n e was f e n c e d i n o r d e r t o a v o i d t h e n e c e s s i t y of having a

stock controlling device a t the lane entrance.

On t h e n i g h t of May 2 , 1979, a p p r o x i m a t e l y 50 head of

angus h e i f e r s were c o n t a i n e d i n t h e i r pen on t h e Todd r a n c h .

The pen was e n c l o s e d by mesh f e n c e v e r y s i m i l a r t o t h a t

described a s l i n i n g the lane. The c a t t l e , some of which

were i n h e a t , b r o k e t h r o u g h t h i s f e n c e and e n t e r e d a s h e l t e r

b e l t a r e a surrounded by f o u r - s t r a n d b a r b e d w i r e f e n c e .

A f t e r g r a z i n g i n t h e s h e l t e r a r e a f o r some t i m e , t h e c a t t l e

c r a w l e d t h r o u g h t h a t f e n c e w i t h o u t d i s t u r b i n g it and e n t e r e d

t h e p a r k i n g l o t and turn-around a r e a used by Todd's c u s t o m e r s

f o r l o a d i n g and u n l o a d i n g s t o c k . The g a t e l e a d i n g from t h a t

a r e a t o t h e l a n e was open. The c a l v e s walked t h r o u g h t h e

open g a t e , down t h e l a n e and o n t o Highway 1 0 .

The t r u c k d r i v e n by F l i n t c o l l i d e d w i t h two of t h e

h e i f e r s w h i l e t h e y were on t h e highway. The t r u c k went i n t o

t h e borrow p i t and u p s e t . F l i n t was i n j u r e d .

On J a n u a r y 1 2 , 1981, d e f e n d a n t Montana Department o f

Highways moved f o r summary judgment p u r s u a n t t o Rule 56 of

t h e Montana Rules of C i v i l P r o c e d u r e . On March 1 0 , 1981,

a f t e r c o n s i d e r i n g t h e b r i e f s , d e p o s i t i o n s , s t i p u l a t i o n s and

arguments of t h e p a r t i e s , t h e c o u r t g r a n t e d summary judgment

f o r t h e following reasons:

(1) t h e S t a t e had no s t a t u t o r y d u t y t o e r e c t a c a t t l e

g u a r d , g a t e o r s t o c k c o n t r o l d e v i c e a t t h e Highway 10 e n t r a n c e

t o Todd' s l a n e ;

( 2 ) t h e f a i l u r e t o c o n s t r u c t such a device r e s u l t e d i n

no u n r e a s o n a b l e r i s k of harm t o t h e t r a v e l l i n g p u b l i c ; and

( 3 ) t h e l a c k of a s t o c k c o n t r o l d e v i c e a t t h e e n t r y way

t o t h e r a n c h was n o t , a s a m a t t e r of law, t h e p r o x i m a t e
c a u s e of t h e a c c i d e n t .

~efendant
Sonny Todd moved f o r summary judgment on

March 23, 1981. The c o u r t g r a n t e d h i s motion on May 6 ,

1981, f o r t h e f o l l o w i n g r e a s o n s :

(1) S e c t i o n 60-7-201, MCA, imposes l i a b i l i t y on a

l i v e s t o c k owner o n l y f o r n e g l i q e n t c o n d u c t which r e s u l t s i n

h i s l i v e s t o c k occupying a highway and c a u s i n g i n j u r y ;

( 2 ) t h e r e was no e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d a t t r i a l showing

d e f e n d a n t ' s f e n c e t o be c o n s t r u c t e d o r m a i n t a i n e d i n a

n e g l i g e n t manner; and

( 3 ) t h e r a n c h owner, a s a m a t t e r of law, had no d u t y t o

a n t i c i p a t e t h a t t h e c a t t l e would e s c a p e t h r o u g h two f e n c e

l i n e s and e n t e r a t u r n - a r o u n d a r e a , t h e r e f o r e , making i t

n e c e s s a r y f o r Todd t o e i t h e r keep t h e g a t e between t h e a r e a

and t h e l a n e s h u t when n o t i n u s e o r c o n s t r u c t a s t o c k

control device a t the entrance t o the lane.

The i s s u e s p r e s e n t e d t o t h i s C o u r t on a p p e a l a r e :

(1) Did t h e d e f e n d a n t , Montana Department of Highways,

have a d u t y t o r e q u i r e and m a i n t a i n a c a t t l e g u a r d o r g a t e

a t t h e ranch entrance?

(2) Did t h e d e f e n d a n t , Sonny Todd, have a l e g a l d u t y

t o c o n s t r u c t and m a i n t a i n a f e n c e t o p r e v e n t l i v e s t o c k from

e n t e r i n g t h e highway?

(3) Is t h e r e s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e upon which r e a s o n a b l e

men c o u l d c o n c l u d e t h a t Todd was n e g l i g e n t i n e i t h e r m a i n t a i n i n g

o r c o n s t r u c t i n g t h e f e n c e t h r o u g h which t h e c a t t l e p a s s e d ?

W e uphold summary judgment f o r t h e Montana Department

of Highways and r e v e r s e summary judgment f o r t h e d e f e n d a n t ,

Sonny Todd. W remand t h i s c a s e f o r a d e t e r m i n a t i o n of
e

whether o r n o t Todd was n e g l i g e n t f o r n o t c o n s t r u c t i n g a

s t o c k c o n t r o l device a t t h e l a n e e n t r a n c e o r keeping t h e
g a t e from t h e l a n e t o t h e turn-around a r e a s h u t a t a l l t i m e s

d u r i n g which i t w a s n o t i n u s e . I f t h e t r i e r of f a c t f i n d s

Todd n e g l i g e n t , it must t h e n d e t e r m i n e whether h i s n e g l i g e n c e

was t h e p r o x i m a t e c a u s e of t h e c o l l i s i o n on May 3 , 1979.

B r i e f s , d e p o s i t i o n s and t e s t i m o n y a t h e a r i n g s e s t a b l i s h e d

s e v e r a l undisputed, p e r t i n e n t f a c t s . The Todd r a n c h i s

l o c a t e d o f f Highway 10 a p p r o x i m a t e l y 6.5 m i l e s e a s t of Big

Timber. T h i s i s a n open r a n g e a r e a . Highway 1 0 i s c l a s s i f i e d

by t h e Montana Department of Highways as b e i n g p a r t of t h e

f e d e r a l - a i d primary system. I t is not a controlled access

highway. The s e c t i o n of t h e highway n e a r t h e Todd r a n c h w a s

c o n s t r u c t e d p r i o r t o J u l y 1, 1969, and h a s n o t been r e c o n s t r u c t e d

since t h a t date. T h i s s e c t i o n h a s n e v e r been d e s i g n a t e d a

" h i g h - h a z a r d a r e a " p u r s u a n t t o s e c t i o n 60-7-102(2), Montana

Code Annotated.

The above f a c t s a r e r e l e v a n t t o s e c t i o n s 60-7-101

t h r o u g h 60-7-103, MCA, g o v e r n i n g when t h e Montana Department

of Highways i s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e f e n c i n g of highways, as

w e l l a s t o s e c t i o n s 60-7-201 t h r o u g h 60-7-203, MCA, governing

when a r a n c h e r i s l i a b l e f o r damages c a u s e d by t h e p r e s e n c e

of h i s c a t t l e on a highway. These s t a t u t e s a r e c o n t r o l l i n g

i n t h i s s i t u a t i o n and we f o c u s on them a s t h e b a s i s f o r t h i s

decision.

THE L I A B I L I T Y O F THE DEPARTMENT O F HIGHWAYS

S e c t i o n 60-7-101, MCA, and i t s l e g i s l a t i v e h i s t o r y

i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e 1974 l e g i s l a t u r e i n t e n d e d t o i n c r e a s e t h e

s a f e t y of t h e m o t o r i s t t r a v e l l i n g t h r o u g h t h e r a n c h i n g a r e a s

of Montana. S e c t i o n 60-7-103, MCA, delegates the responsibility

f o r t h e m o t o r i s t s ' s a f e t y t o t h e Montana Department of

Highways. It states:
 "60-7-103. Department t o f e n c e right-of-way
t h r o u g h open r a n g e . (1) The d e p a r t m e n t s h a l l
f e n c e t h e right-of-way of any p a r t of t h e
s t a t e highway system t h a t i s c o n s t r u c t e d o r
r e c o n s t r u c t e d a f t e r J u l y 1, 1969, t h r o u g h open
r a n g e where l i v e s t o c k p r e s e n t a h a z a r d t o t h e
s a f e t y o f t h e m o t o r i s t . Where a f e n c e i s
constructed, adequate stock g a t e s o r stock
p a s s e s , as n e c e s s a r y , s h a l l be p r o v i d e d t o
make l a n d on e i t h e r s i d e of t h e highway u s a b l e
f o r l i v e s t o c k purposes.

" ( 2 ) The d e p a r t m e n t s h a l l e r e c t a f e n c e i n
e v e r y high-hazard a r e a a s promptly a s p o s s i -
b l e , and t h e c o s t of such c o n s t r u c t i o n i s a n
e x p e n d i t u r e f o r t h e enforcement of f e d e r a l -
a i d highway s a f e t y programs. Gates, stock
u n d e r p a s s e s , w a t e r f a c i l i t i e s , and c a t t l e
g u a r d s may b e i n s t a l l e d where n e c e s s a r y t o
make t h e l a n d on e i t h e r s i d e of t h e highway
u s a b l e f o r l i v e s t o c k p u r p o s e s o r where a
p u b l i c right-of-way i n t e r s e c t s t h e s t a t e high-
way. "

S e c t i o n 60-7-102 (1) and ( 2 ) , MCA, d e f i n e s "open r a n g e "

and " h i g h - h a z a r d a r e a " as f o l l o w s :

" (1) 'Open r a n g e 1 means t h o s e a r e a s of t h e
s t a t e where l i v e s t o c k i s r a i s e d and m a i n t a i n -
ed i n s u f f i c i e n t numbers as t o c o n s t i t u t e a
s i g n i f i c a n t p a r t of t h e l o c a l o r c o u n t y econ-
omy and where s u c h a n i m a l s g r a z e and move
a b o u t g e n e r a l l y u n r e s t r a i n e d by f e n c e s .

" ( 2 ) A ' h i g h - h a z a r d a r e a 1 i s a segment of
t h e p r i m a r y highway system p a s s i n g t h r o u g h
open r a n g e where l i v e s t o c k moves on o r a c r o s s
t h e highway o f t e n enough, i n enough numbers,
and w i t h enough e a s e of a c c e s s t h a t such a n i -
mals c r e a t e a s i g n i f i c a n t t r a f f i c s a f e t y
hazard. Evidence b e a r i n g on whether a n i m a l s
on t h e highway p o s e a s i g n i f i c a n t h a z a r d i n -
cludes, without l i m i t a t i o n , p a s t accident
r e c o r d s , t h e o p i n i o n s of p e r s o n s q u a l i f i e d
by e x p e r i e n c e t o e v a l u a t e t h e r e l a t i v e s a f e t y
of r o a d c o n d i t i o n s , and t h e t e r r a i n around
t h e r o a d . I'

S i n c e t h e p a s s a g e of s e c t i o n 60-7-103, MCA, t h e Montana

Department of Highways i s o b l i g a t e d t o f e n c e any r i g h t - o f -

way c o n s t r u c t e d o r r e c o n s t r u c t e d a f t e r J u l y 1, 1969, t h r o u g h

a hazardous open r a n g e a r e a . I n a d d i t i o n , t h e Department

must a l s o f e n c e any e x i s t i n g right-of-way which it c l a s s i f i e s

a s b e i n g i n a n open r a n g e area c o n t a i n i n g a s u f f i c i e n t

number of roaming l i v e s t o c k t o c o n s t i t u t e a s i g n i f i c a n t
t r a f f i c s a f e t y hazard. These f e n c e s must i n c l u d e s t o c k

g a t e s , s t o c k p a s s e s and c a t t l e g u a r d s wherever n e c e s s a r y .

The i n s t a n t s i t u a t i o n i s n o t c o v e r e d by t h e s e s t a t u t e s .

D e p o s i t i o n s of two employees of t h e Department of Highways

e s t a b l i s h t h a t no c o n s t r u c t i o n o r r e c o n s t r u c t i o n h a s been

completed on t h e r e l e v a n t highway s e c t i o n s i n c e J u l y 1,

1969. I n a d d i t i o n , t h e Montana Department of Highways h a s

n o t c l a s s i f i e d t h i s segment of highways a s a "high-hazard

area." T h e r e f o r e , p u r s u a n t t o s e c t i o n 60-7-103, MCA, the

Department o f Highways h a s no s t a t u t o r y d u t y t o c o n s t r u c t a

f e n c e and t h u s no d u t y t o c o n s t r u c t a s t o c k c o n t r o l d e v i c e .

P l a i n t i f f s a l s o r e l y on s e c t i o n 81-4-103, MCA, as a

b a s i s f o r e s t a b l i s h i n g n e g l i g e n c e on t h e p a r t of t h e Department

of Highways. That s e c t i o n s t a t e s :

"Civil Liability. Any p e r s o n c o n s t r u c t i n g
o r m a i n t a i n i n g any f e n c e of any k i n d n o t
d e s c r i b e d i n 81-4-101 i s l i a b l e i n a c i v i l
a c t i o n f o r a l l damages c a u s e d by r e a s o n of
i n j u r y t o s t o c k r e s u l t i n g from s u c h d e f e c -
t i v e fence."

S e c t i o n 81-4-101, MCA, defines a l e g a l fence. The d e f i n i t i o n s

a r e based on h e i g h t and f e n c i n g m a t e r i a l . P l a i n t i f f s present

no f a c t s a l l e g i n g t h a t t h e Todd r a n c h f e n c e f a i l s t o conform

t o t h e d e f i n i t i o n of a l e g a l f e n c e . Rather, p l a i n t i f f s

a l l e g e t h a t s e c t i o n 81-4-102, MCA, r e q u i r e s t h e p r e s e n c e of

an a u t o pass i n order t o c r e a t e a l e g a l fence. This a l l e g a t i o n

i s n o t w e l l founded.

S e c t i o n 81-4-102, MCA, s t a t e s merely t h a t t h e p r e s e n c e

of a n a u t o p a s s w i l l n o t make a n o t h e r w i s e l e g a l f e n c e

illegal. T h i s s e c t i o n e n s u r e s t h a t a f e n c e need n o t be a

c e r t a i n h e i g h t where v e h i c l e s p a s s t h r o u g h it i n o r d e r t o

retain i t s legal characterization. I t d o e s n o t imply t h a t a

fence without an auto pass i s i l l e g a l . A s t h e r e a r e no

o t h e r a l l e g a t i o n s by p l a i n t i f f s t h a t t h e Todd f e n c e i s
i l l e g a l , t h e Department of Highways i s n o t l i a b l e t o p l a i n t i f f s

f o r c o n s t r u c t i o n of a n i l l e g a l f e n c e p u r s u a n t t o s e c t i o n 81-

4-103, MCA.

in ally, p l a i n t i f f s a s s e r t a g e n e r a l d u t y on t h e p a r t

of t h e S t a t e t o b u i l d and m a i n t a i n highways i n a s a f e manner,

S t a t e ex. r e l . Byorth v . D i s t r i c t C o u r t , 1 4 t h J u d i c i a l

D i s t r i c t ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 175 Mont. 63, 572 P.2d 201, and t o e n s u r e

t h a t t h e roads a r e not constructed negligently. Negligent

c o n d u c t i s t h a t which f a l l s below t h e s t a n d a r d e s t a b l i s h e d

by law f o r t h e p r o t e c t i o n of o t h e r s a g a i n s t u n r e a s o n a b l e

r i s k and n e c e s s a r i l y i n v o l v e s t h e c o n c e p t s of r e a s o n a b l e n e s s

and f o r e s e e a b i l i t y . Mang v . E l i a s s o n ( 1 9 6 9 ) , 153 Mont. 431,

435, 458 P . 2d 777.

The S t a t e p a i d i n 1936 f o r t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n of a r i g h t -

of-way f e n c e on t h e Todd r a n c h . Undisputed e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t e s

t h a t t h e r a n c h owners have s i n c e m a i n t a i n e d t h e f e n c e and

t h a t t h e f e n c e h a s been, and c u r r e n t l y i s , i n e x c e l l e n t

condition. The l a n e l e a d i n g from t h e Todd r a n c h t o Highway

1 0 i s t o t a l l y fenced. I t c o n t a i n s a g a t e w i t h an a d e q u a t e

latch. These f a c t s made it r e a s o n a b l e f o r t h e Department of

Highways t o b e l i e v e t h e r o a d t o b e s a f e from t h e i n t r u s i o n

of l i v e s t o c k from t h e Todd ranch. The a c t i o n s of t h e c a t t l e

i n t h i s p a r t i c u l a r i n s t a n c e were n o t f o r e s e e a b l e by t h e

Department of Highways.

A s t h e S t a t e h a s no s t a t u t o r y o r g e n e r a l d u t y t o r e q u i r e

a c a t t l e guard o r s t o c k g a t e a t t h e l a n e e n t r a n c e t o t h e

Todd r a n c h , f a i l u r e t o c o n s t r u c t such a d e v i c e w a s n o t
n e g l i g e n c e on t h e p a r t of t h e S t a t e . I t i s fundamental t o

t h e law of t o r t s t h a t t h e r e can be no n e g l i g e n c e i f no d u t y

exists. P r o s s e r on t h e Law of T o r t s S30 ( 1 9 7 1 ) . W e uphold

t h e summary judgment d e t e r m i n a t i o n f o r d e f e n d a n t Department
o f Highways as p l a i n t i f f s f a i l e d t o e s t a b l i s h any d u t y , a
m a t e r i a l e l e m e n t of t h e n e g l i g e n c e c l a i m .

THE L I A B I L I T Y O F S N Y TODD
O N

The D i s t r i c t C o u r t found t h e segment of Highway 1 0

i n v o l v e d i n t h i s c a s e t o be l o c a t e d i n a n open r a n g e a r e a .

G e n e r a l l y , a n open r a n g e d e s i g n a t i o n i m p l i e s t h a t a n owner

i s n o t l i a b l e f o r h i s wandering l i v e s t o c k . Beinhorn v .

Griswold ( 1 9 0 2 ) , 27 E4ont. 79, 90, 69 P . 557, 558; Thompson

v . Mattuschek ( 1 9 5 9 ) , 134 Mont. 500, 506, 333 P.2d 1022,

1025; B a r t s c h v. I r v i n e ( 1 9 6 7 ) , 149 Mont. 405, 427 P.2d 302.

The open r a n g e t r a d i t i o n h a s become i n c r e a s i n g l y e r o d e d o v e r

t h e y e a r s a s a g r e a t e r number of m o t o r i s t s have a p p e a r e d on

Montana's r o a d s and highways. S e c t i o n s 60-7-201 and 60-7-

202, MCA, a r e t h e s t a t u t o r y embodiments of t h i s e r o s i o n .

P r i o r t o 1974 t h e s t a t u t e s made it u n l a w f u l f o r t h e

owner of l i v e s t o c k t o w i l f u l l y a l l o w them t o g r a z e on t h e

right-of-way of f e n c e d f e d e r a l and s t a t e highways. See

s e c t i o n 32-21-178, R.C.M., 1947. The s p e c i f i c l a n g u a g e

employed was " s h a l l n o t w i l f u l l y p e r m i t . " I n 1974, t h e

s u c c e s s o r of t h a t s e c t i o n was amended t o s t a t e , i n r e l e v a n t

part:

"60-7-201. Grazing l i v e s t o c k on highway un-
l a w f u l . A p e r s o n who owns o r p o s s e s s e s l i v e -
s t o c k may n o t p e r m i t t h e l i v e s t o c k t o g r a z e ,
remain upon, o r occupy a p a r t of t h e r i g h t -
of-way o f :

" ( 2 ) a s t a t e highway d e s i g n a t e d by agreement
between t h e highway commission and t h e s e c r e -
t a r y of t r a n s p o r t a t i o n a s a p a r t of t h e f e d e r -
a l - a i d p r i m a r y system, e x c e p t a s p r o v i d e d i n
60-7-202."

P l a i n t i f f s a s s e r t t h a t t h e 1974 amendment r e s u l t e d i n a

s t a n d a r d o f a b s o l u t e l i a b i l i t y f o r c o n d u c t by a r a n c h e r

r e s u l t i n g i n a f a i l u r e t o keep h i s l i v e s t o c k o f f a highway.
W cannot agree.
e P r i o r t o 1974, a r a n c h e r was l i a b l e o n l y

when he w i l f u l l y a l l o w e d h i s l i v e s t o c k t o roam on a highway.

The l e g i s l a t u r e ' s c h o i c e of t h e t e r m "may n o t p e r m i t " i m p l i e s

t h e r e d u c t i o n of t h e w i l f u l l n e s s s t a n d a r d t o one of n e g l i g e n c e .

P r a c t i c a l l y e v e r y s t a t e which h a s c o n s i d e r e d t h e i s s u e

a g r e e s t h a t t h e u s e of words such a s " p e r m i t , " " a l l o w " o r

" s u f f e r " i m p l i e s l i a b i l i t y f o r n e g l i g e n t c o n d u c t a s opposed

t o absolute l i a b i l i t y . See, e.g., S a n t a n e l l o v . Cooper

( A r i z . 1 9 7 0 ) , 106 A r i z . 262, 475 P.2d 246; P o r i e r v . Spivey

(Ga. 1 9 5 8 ) , 97 Ga. App. 209, 1 0 2 S.E.2d 706; Kupper v.

Connolly ( L a . App. 1 9 6 3 ) , 153 So.2d 915; S u t t o n v . Duke

(N.c. 1 9 6 9 ) , 7 N.C. App. 1 0 0 , 1 7 1 S.E.2d 343, a f f ' d . (1970),

277 N.C. 94, 176 S.E.2d 161; Burback v . Bucher (Wa. 1 9 6 0 ) ,

56 Wash. 2d 875, 355 P. 2d 981; S p a r k s v . Doe ( ~ y .1 9 6 4 ) , 379

S.W.2d 252; D o l l a r h i d e v. Knight ( M i s s . 1 9 5 3 ) , 216 M i s s .

Ranchers i n Montana a r e now l i a b l e f o r n e g l i g e n t r a t h e r

t h a n w i l f u l 1 c o n d u c t which r e s u l t s i n t h e p r e s e n c e of t h e i r

c a t t l e on t h e r i g h t - o f -ways.

S e c t i o n 60-7-202, MCA, contains the exclusions t o

s e c t i o n 60-7-201, MCA, and s t a t e s :

"60-7-202. Exclusions. S e c t i o n 60-7-201
does n o t apply t o t h e following:

" ( 1 ) l i v e s t o c k on s t a t e highways under t h e
c h a r g e o f one o r more h e r d e r s ;

" ( 2 ) t h e p a r t s of f e n c e d highways a d j a c e n t
t o open r a n g e where a highway d e v i c e h a s n o t
been i n s t a l l e d t o e x c l u d e r a n g e l i v e s t o c k ;

" ( 3 ) t h e p a r t s of a s t a t e highway o r a p a r t
of t h e f e d e r a l - a i d primary system which t h e
d e p a r t m e n t o f highways d e s i g n a t e s a s b e i n g
impracticable t o exclude livestock. These
p o r t i o n s of t h e highway s h a l l be marked by
proper s i g n s i n accordance with t h e depart-
m e n t ' s manual and s p e c i f i c a t i o n s f o r a u n i -
form system of t r a f f i c - c o n t r o l d e v i c e s . "
 The u n d i s p u t e d e v i d e n c e c l e a r l y i n d i c a t e s t h a t T o d d ' s

h e i f e r s were n o t i n t h e c h a r g e of one o r more h e r d e r s on t h e

n i g h t of May 2 , 1979. T h e r e f o r e , e x c l u s i o n number o n e d o e s

n o t apply.

W e f i n d t h a t e x c l u s i o n number two a p p l i e s o n l y t o

l i v e s t o c k which wander from open r a n g e o n t o a d j a c e n t f e n c e d

highway. Open r a n g e i s d e f i n e d i n s e c t i o n 60-7-102, MCA, as

b e i n g an a r e a where a n i m a l s g r a z e and move a b o u t g e n e r a l l y

u n r e s t r a i n e d by f e n c e s . Todd's h e i f e r s were r e s t r a i n e d by

f e n c e s p r i o r t o b r e a k i n g f r e e and roaming o n t o Highway 1 0 .

T h e r e f o r e , e x c l u s i o n number two i s i n a p p l i c a b l e .

F i n a l l y , no e v i d e n c e was p r e s e n t e d t o i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e

Department of Highways d e s i g n a t e d t h e r e l e v a n t s e c t i o n of

Highway 10 a s i m p r a c t i c a b l e f o r e x c l u d i n g l i v e s t o c k . Exclusion

number t h r e e i s a l s o i n a p p l i c a b l e .

A s Todd d o e s n o t q u a l i f y f o r any of t h e e x c l u s i o n s

found i n s e c t i o n 60-7-202, MCA, w e f i n d him s u b j e c t t o
s e c t i o n 60-7-201, MCA. W h o l d t h a t Todd h a s a l e g a l d u t y
e

t o e x e r c i s e due c a r e i n p r e v e n t i n g h i s l i v e s t o c k from wandering

on Highway 1 0 .

The f e n c e s u r r o u n d i n g t h e Todd r a n c h was i n e x c e l l e n t

condition. However, h e d i d n o t c o n s t r u c t a s t o c k c o n t r o l

d e v i c e a t t h e e n t r a n c e t o h i s l a n e b e c a u s e h e had c o n s t r u c t e d

f e n c e a l o n g t h e e n t i r e l e n g t h of t h e l a n e and had i n s t a l l e d

a g a t e f u r t h e r up t h e l a n e toward t h e farm i t s e l f . Through

some i n a d v e r t e n t a c t i o n , t h e g a t e t o t h e l a n e w a s open on

t h e n i g h t of May 2 , 1979, and e a r l y morning of May 3 , 1979.

The r e a s o n a b l e n e s s of Todd's c o n d u c t i s f o r a j u r y t o d e c i d e .

W e remand t h i s case t o t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r t r i a l a s

t o d e f e n d a n t Todd. W e a f f i r m summary judgment i n f a v o r of

the State.
 We Concur:

ydoL
LJ 6- XL-~~L~,,
J tic s
2-