Brookover v. Roberts Enterprises Inc.
503 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 11, 156 P.3d 1157, 215 Ariz. 52 (2007)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In an 'open range' territory, a livestock owner's mere failure to prevent cattle from entering a public highway, such as by not erecting fences, does not, by itself, constitute a breach of the duty of ordinary care owed to motorists. To establish negligence, a plaintiff must demonstrate specific acts or omissions by the owner that created a particular danger.
Facts:
- In July 2003, Roberts Enterprises, Inc. (Roberts) leased the Clem Allotment, which is designated as open range land, for the purpose of grazing cattle.
- In August 2003, Roberts first placed its cattle on the allotment.
- The Salome Highway, a two-lane paved road, runs directly through the Clem Allotment property.
- Roberts did not construct any fences along the portion of the Salome Highway that crossed the allotment.
- On September 16, 2003, Ronald and Tonya Brookover were driving approximately fifty-five miles per hour on the Salome Highway.
- Ronald Brookover saw one of Roberts's cows, braked, and moved to the edge of the road to avoid it.
- While maneuvering, Brookover struck a second cow that was near the front of his vehicle.
- The collision caused the Brookovers' vehicle to roll over, resulting in the dispute.
- Prior to this incident, there had been no reported collisions involving Roberts's cattle on this specific allotment.
Procedural Posture:
- Ronald and Tonya Brookover filed a negligence lawsuit against Roberts Enterprises, Inc. in an Arizona trial court.
- The Brookovers filed a Second Amended Complaint, alleging negligence and asserting the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.
- Roberts filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing it was not negligent as a matter of law.
- The trial court granted Roberts's motion for summary judgment.
- The Brookovers filed a motion for reconsideration, which the trial court denied before entering a final judgment for Roberts.
- The Brookovers (appellants) appealed the trial court's judgment to the Arizona Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
In an 'open range' territory, does a livestock owner breach the duty of ordinary care owed to motorists by grazing cattle on land traversed by a paved, high-speed highway without erecting fences, posting warning signs, or taking other measures to keep the cattle off the road?
Opinions:
Majority - Thompson, J.
No. In an 'open range' territory, a livestock owner does not breach the duty of ordinary care simply by failing to prevent cattle from entering a highway. The court, relying on the precedent set in Carrow Co. v. Lusby, held that the standard of care requires a plaintiff to prove a specific negligent act or omission beyond the mere failure to fence or otherwise contain livestock. The Brookovers' arguments failed to meet this standard. The court rejected the claim that Roberts's general knowledge about increased collisions on paved roads constituted notice of a specific dangerous condition on the Clem Allotment, as there were no prior incidents there. The argument regarding a failure to post warning signs failed because Brookover was already aware of the potential presence of cattle, meaning a lack of signs was not the proximate cause of the accident. Finally, the court dismissed the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, reasoning that a collision with a cow in open range is not an event that ordinarily occurs only because of negligence, and applying the doctrine would contradict the established rule in Carrow.
Analysis:
This decision strongly reaffirms the legal principle established in Carrow Co. v. Lusby, solidifying the significant legal protection afforded to livestock owners in Arizona's 'open range' territories. It clarifies that a plaintiff's burden of proof is substantial, requiring evidence of specific negligence rather than general risk or the simple presence of an animal on the road. The ruling effectively narrows the path to recovery for motorists, making it clear that foreseeability of harm alone is insufficient without notice of a specific, localized danger. By rejecting the application of res ipsa loquitur, the court ensures that the mere occurrence of a cattle-vehicle accident in open range does not create an inference of negligence, thereby preserving the legislative and common law policy favoring open range ranching.
