Posted on 09/19/2014 7:09:21 AM PDT by redreno
State transportation officials are refuting rancher Cliven Bundy’s claim that they are ultimately responsible for keeping his cattle off Interstate 15 in northeastern Clark County.
In a statement Thursday, Mary Martini, district engineer for the Nevada Department of Transportation in Las Vegas, said that while the state maintains the fences along I-15 to “designate the right of way” and control access, “it is always the responsibility and liability of the owners to control their animals.”
The dispute could be headed for court.
Bundy was sued for negligence this week by a 34-year-old Las Vegas woman injured when her car hit one of the rancher’s cows on I-15 about 10 miles from his Bunkerville ranch.
The April 14 crash came two days after Bundy and his armed supporters made national news by forcing federal authorities to abruptly abandon an impound operation on public land where the rancher has been raising hundreds of cows without paying grazing fees for more than 20 years.
The collision with the cow sent Danielle Beck and her boyfriend, Matthew Zanatta, to the hospital.
(Excerpt) Read more at reviewjournal.com ...
They gonna have a leash law for cows now?
blm plot after “obtaining” a Bundy branded moo?
Pretty much standard for the farmer to be responsible if someone hits a cow.
It depends on whether that state has a fence law.
Does anyone know?
Does it make a difference as to on who's land the cattle/cow are grazing?
If the Fed is leasing land for grazing purposes, should they not be responsible for maintaining the fence?
Irish case law offers this:
In Scully v. Mulhall17, for example, it was held that a person is not guilty of negligence for merely bringing and driving a bullock known to be quiet on the highway. The action arose because although known to be quiet and being driven properly the bullock in question suddenly broke into a gallop and knocked the plaintiff off her bicycle.
Just sayin'.
It would be a different story if the cows broke through a fence alongside some local road or farm road and thence wandered on to the Interstate.
The reason for the fence maintenance requirements date back to the Eisenhower administration when the interstate system was first authorized for national defense purposes. High speed highways and critters, whether local livestock or wildlife, present a potentially lethal hazard to travelers. The fence is the last line of defense.
Anyone who has driven through the more desolate parts of I-80 in Wyoming and Nebraska will notice fences along most of the entire length save for a few sections where the terrain makes the erection of a fence nearly impossible. These areas, where there is a risk for wildlife, are marked with warning signs about wildlife crossing.
Out this way it’s fence them OUT not fence them IN on range land.
It depends on whether that state has a fence law.
Does anyone know?
http://asci.uvm.edu/equine/law/fence/nv_fnc.htm
568.360. Duties of owners of domestic animals with respect to domestic animals upon the highway
1. No person, firm or corporation owning, controlling or in possession of any domestic animal running on open range has the duty to keep the animal off any highway traversing or located on the open range, and no such person, firm or corporation is liable for damages to any property or for injury to any person caused by any collision between a motor vehicle and the animal occurring on such a highway.
2. Any person, firm or corporation negligently allowing a domestic animal to enter within a fenced right of way of a highway is liable for damages caused by a collision between a motor vehicle and the animal occurring on the highway.
So I guess that as in everything legal, the answer is “yes and no”.
Cattle and roads are quite contentious. A buddy of mine nailed a cow on an unmarked road in the middle of the night. He got sued for the cow and a lifetime’s “calf” production of the cow. He lost and paid a fortune for a damned cow. To add insult to injury he couldn’t take the dead cow for the meat.
Take-Home Road kill is compensation to suffice the claim.
From the tort:
“You break it, you buy it”
That would be "disputing," right?
That is, if the reporter (or his editor) were, you know, objective—as opposed to a herd animal that has gotten the message that the Authorities must not be questioned by their subjects.
Bundy is covered by the “open range law”.
Basically, if he did not intentionally graze his cattle on the right of way, he is not responsible.
The city folk that have moved to thw state don;t like that and are trying to change it, but it is the law, for now.
East of the Mississippi, , there is no open range law, it is “fence them in”. The morons the gooberment hires aren’t from the area and are ignorant of the law.
The April 14 crash came two days after Bundy and his armed supporters made national news by forcing federal authorities to abruptly abandon an impound operation on public land...
Outside of some pretty clear precedent on open range law, how do they know it was Bundy who was negligent? Given the timing of all of this, it could very easily have been the BLM who was negligent with his cattle.
Not on open range. That said, the Interstate Freeway System isn’t.
I think that if I were on the jury I would take the position that the highway department is responsible under the provisions of the following for it is plainly the highway department’s negligence in not maintaining its fences in an open range area.
2. Any person, firm or corporation negligently allowing a domestic animal to enter within a fenced right of way of a highway is liable for damages caused by a collision between a motor vehicle and the animal occurring on the highway.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.