Maguire v. Yanke
590 P.2d 85, 99 Idaho 829, 1978 Ida. LEXIS 336 (1978)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Outside of incorporated cities, villages, or statutorily created herd districts, a livestock owner has no duty to fence in their animals, and is not liable for damages caused by their livestock straying onto unenclosed private land.
Facts:
- In 1975, Claude Porter leased a tract of land and subleased 82 acres of hay and alfalfa land to Maguire.
- The land subleased to Maguire was surrounded by a fence that was in a state of disrepair.
- Porter also subleased adjacent pasture land to Yanke, under an agreement that Yanke would maintain the fence around the pasture to confine his cattle.
- The properties were not located within a designated herd district, though testimony indicated the area was historically one of enclosed lands.
- In June 1975, Yanke moved approximately 270 head of cattle onto his leased pasture.
- On multiple occasions between mid-July and August 2, 1975, Yanke's cattle broke through their pasture fence and strayed onto Maguire's land.
- On August 2, 1975, approximately 137 of Yanke’s cattle entered Maguire's hayfield, causing substantial damage to his baled hay and growing crops.
Procedural Posture:
- Maguire filed an action against Yanke in district court seeking actual and punitive damages for trespass by cattle.
- The district court, acting as the trial court, entered a judgment in favor of Maguire for $3,818 in actual damages but denied punitive damages.
- The trial court based its decision on the legal conclusion that Yanke had a duty to fence his cattle in because the area was historically enclosed land and not open range.
- Yanke (appellant) appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of Idaho; Maguire is the respondent.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a livestock owner liable for damages caused by their cattle straying onto another's unenclosed land, when the land is not located in a designated herd district but is in an area that has been historically used as enclosed land rather than open range?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Donaldson
No. A livestock owner is not liable for damages caused by their cattle straying onto another's unenclosed property unless that property is located within a city, village, or a designated herd district. Idaho rejected the English common law rule requiring livestock owners to fence in their animals, adopting instead a 'fence out' doctrine. This doctrine places the duty on landowners to construct a 'legal fence' if they wish to recover for damages caused by trespassing livestock. The only way to reverse this rule is for landowners in a specific area to petition and vote for the creation of a herd district, which statutorily reimposes the duty to fence animals in. The trial court erred by creating a third category of land based on historical custom, as this would nullify the herd district statutes. The specific statutory definitions of 'open range' were enacted for limited purposes (regulating herd district creation and liability for vehicle collisions) and do not alter the general statewide 'fence out' rule. Yanke's duty to keep his cattle off the adjacent highway was a duty owed to motorists, not to the adjoining landowner, Maguire.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Justice Bakes
Yes. A livestock owner should be held liable under a negligence standard for damages caused by their cattle in an area that is neither customary open range nor a designated herd district. The majority incorrectly dismisses the legislature's explicit statutory definitions of 'open range' as land where livestock roam 'by custom.' Since the land in question was not customary open range, the 'fence out' rule should not apply. The court should recognize three classifications of land, as it did in Soran v. Schoessler: 1) open range, 2) herd districts, and 3) non-open range areas where a negligence standard applies. This case should be remanded to determine if Yanke was negligent in maintaining his fences or if he is liable for a willful trespass by overstocking his land, which forced his cattle onto Maguire's property in search of food.
Analysis:
This decision firmly entrenches Idaho's 'fence out' doctrine as the default rule for the entire state, outside of limited exceptions. It clarifies that historical land use customs are irrelevant; a landowner's only remedies against trespassing livestock on unenclosed land are to build a legal fence or to organize a statutory herd district. The court's narrow interpretation of the term 'open range' prevents the creation of 'de facto' herd districts based on custom, reinforcing the legislature's statutory scheme as the exclusive method for altering liability rules. This places a significant burden on landowners in developing areas to proactively seek herd district status if they desire protection from neighboring livestock operations.
