ROSS v GOLDEN STATE RODEO CO
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 12554 I N T E SUPREME C U T O THE STATE O M N A A H OR F F OTN KEITH W. ROSS i n d i v i d u a l l y and KEITH W. ROSS a s a d m i n i s t r a t o r of t h e E s t a t e of J e f f e r y Wade Ross, a deceased minor c h i l d and r e p r e s e n t a t i v e and s u c c e s s o r i n i n t e r e s t of J e f f r e y Wade Ross, a deceased minor c h i l d , and Connie J. Ross, P l a i n t i f f and A p p e l l a n t , G L E STATE RODEO COMPANY, a Corporation, ODN Defendant Appeal from: and R e s p o n d e n t . D i s t r i c t Court of t h e F i r s t J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable Gordon R. Bennett, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel of Record: For Appellant: G r a y b i l l , G r a y b i l l , Ostrem and Warner, Great F a l l s , Montana H a r r i s o n , Loendorf and Poston, Helena, Montana Jerome T. Loendorf argued, Helena, Montana For Respondent : Helena, Montana Risken and ~ ' ~ e a r y , J a c k Risken argued, Helena, Montana Submitted: Decided: June 1 7 , 1974 42 5 1974 Pllr. . J u s t i c e Wesley C a s t l e s d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. This i s an a p p e a l from a judgment f o r d e f e n d a n t s e n t e r e d on a jury verdict. P l a i n t i f f a p p e a l s f o l l o w i n g d e n i a l of motions f o r judgment notwithstandimg t h e v e r d i c t and new t r i a l . The c a s e was t r i e d i n Lewis and C l a r k County, Hon. Gordon Bennett p r e s i d i n g . Because t h e i s s u e s on a p p e a l a r e r a t h e r narrowly s t a t e d , t o understand o u r h o l d i n g h e r e i t i s important t o d i s c u s s some of t h e preliminaries. The amended complaint named, i n t e r a l i a , i n d i v i d u a l county commissioners and i n d i v i d u a l members of t h e Lewis and C l a r k County F a i r Commission. These persons were l a t e r dismissed a s d e f e n d a n t s , A f t e r t h a t d i s m i s s a l t h e r e remained a s d e f e n d a n t s t h e County of Lewis and C l a r k , t h e F a i r Board, Golden S t a t e Rodeo Co, and John Doe I - X . Two of p l a i n t i f f ' s c o u n t s were abandoned b e f o r e t r i a l , l e a v i n g this situation: P l a i n t i f f K e i t h W. Ross sued t o r e c o v e r damages f o r t h e wrongful d e a t h of J e f f e r y Ross h i s i n f a n t son, which o c c u r r e d on August 1, 1971, a t t h e L a s t Chance Stampede and F a i r a t Lewis and C l a r k County f a i r g r o u n d s . There remained two c o u n t s of t h e complaint (1) t h e a c t i o n of p l a i n t i f f i n d i v i d u a l l y f o r t h e wrongful d e a t h of h i s son and, (2) t h e a c t i o n of p l a i n t i f f a s a d m i n i s t r a t o r o f t h e e s t a t e of h i s deceased minor son under ~ o n t a n a ' sg e n e r a l s u r vival statute. Following judgment and a f t e r a p p e a l was taken a g a i n s t a l l d e f e n d a n t s , a d d i t i o n a l and new c o u n s e l came i n t o t h e c a s e f o r p l a i n tiff. A t t h a t t i m e , p l a i n t i f f dismissed t h e a p p e a l a s t o Lewis and C l a r k County, L a s t Chance Stampede and F a i r A s s o c i a t i o n , I n c . , and John Doe I - X , e x p r e s s i n g t h e i n t e n t t o a p p e a l only a s t o one d e f e n d a n t , Golden S t a t e Rodeo Co. A o r d e r was made, ex p a r t e , p e r m i t t i n g t h i s . n The s i g n i f i c a n c e of t h e narrowing of t h e a p p e a l w i l l appear h e r e i n after. The rodeo a t which t h e d e a t h of t h e boy occurred took p l a c e a t t h e Lewis and C l a r k County f a i r g r o u n d s . For a number of y e a r s t h e county h a s h i r e d o r c o n t r a c t e d w i t h Golden S t a t e t o b r i n g rodeo s t o c k t o Helena and t o produce a rodeo known a s t h e L a s t Chance F a c i l i t i e s f o r t h e show were e r e c t e d and maintained by t h e Stampede. county. Testimony was given t h a t such f a c i l i t i e s were e x c e l l e n t and b e t t e r than adequate. The county n o t o n l y s u p p l i e d t h e f a c i l i t i e s b u t s u p p l i e d s e c u r i t y personnel t o p r o t e c t t h e s p e c t a t o r s . O t h e d a t e of t h e a c c i d e n t p l a i n t i f f ' s family had come t o n Helena t o a t t e n d t h e rodeo and had been on t h e grounds f o r some period o f time p r i o r t o t h e a c c i d e n t . was t h e l a s t event of t h e rodeo. P l a i n t i f f had purchased t i c k e t s which e n t i t l e d h i s family t o s e a t s . l e f t h i s s e a t and was i n a II A Brahma b u l l r i d i n g event Before t h e a c c i d e n t p l a i n t i f f r e s t r i c t e d a r e a " f o r some time--approxi- mately an hour-- w i t h h i s t h r e e year o l d son. was an a r e a around one of t h e arena g a t e s . The " r e s t r i c t e d area" While t h e r e were no o b s t a c l e s o r c o n s t r u c t i o n s t o p h y s i c a l l y r e s t r a i n anyone from approaching o r s t a n d i n g i n t h e a r e a of t h e g a t e , t h e r e were r e p e a t e d warnings by p u b l i c announcement and o r a l warnings by uniformed s e c u r i t y personnel, The g a t e was about s i x f e e t h i g h , t h e same h e i g h t a s t h e f e n c e around the arena. The Brahma b u l l "Yellow ever" threw i t s r i d e r ; then t r o t t e d over t o t h e g a t e i n q u e s t i o n and jumped on i t , f e l l on over t o t h e o t h e r s i d e and landed on t h e t h r e e y e a r o l d boy. The boy d i e d of h i s i n j u r i e s b e f o r e he reached t h e h o s p i t a l . The b u l l Yellow Fever was v a r i o u s l y d e s c r i b e d a s a "good" b u l l , one of our "besf' b u l l s , a "good performer", a rl vicioust' b u l l . A e x p e r t on Brahma b u l l s d e s c r i b e d them a s b e i n g t h e "most a c t i v e n domestic animals". The i s s u e s on a p p e a l a r e t h r e e : (1) Whether t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t e r r e d i n n o t d i r e c t i n g a v e r d i c t on t h e i s s u e of l i a b i l i t y ; (2) E r r o r i n i n s t r u c t i o n s ; and ( 3 ) Whether t h e v e r d i c t i s supported by t h e f a c t s . The main t h r u s t of a p p e l l a n t ' s a p p e a l i s t h a t t h e r e e x i s t e d under t h e f a c t s presented a s i t u a t i o n where defendant Golden S t a t e Rodeo Co. was n e g l i g e n t a s a m a t t e r of law, and t h u s t h e i s s u e should n o t have been submitted t o t h e j u r y . I t i s important t o remember t h a t h e r e we a r e concerned o n l y w i t h Golden S t a t e Rodeo Co. Golden S t a t e , under t h e evidence, was t h e show producer i n t h e a r e n a only. I t had no c o n t r o l o v e r s p e c t a t o r s , i n c l u d i n g p l a i n t i f f and h i s son. De- f e n d a n t s who had c o n t r o l o f , and t h e r e s u l t a n t duty t o t h e s p e c t a t o r s have, f o r r e a s o n s known o n l y t o p l a i n t i f f , been dismissed from t h e appeal. Thus, we only look State. narrowly t o t h e proof a s i t concerns Golden The o n l y proof was t h a t Golden S t a t e f u r n i s h e d t h e b u l l ellow ow ever"; t h a t t h e b u l l was dangerous; and, t h a t he had been known t o jump f e n c e s . P l a i n t i f f , we b e l i e v e , throughout t h e t r i a l and h e r e , b e l i e v e d t h a t an owner of a v i c i o u s o r dangerous animal i s an i n s u r e r . I n Hansen v. Brogan, 145 Mont. 224, 400 P.2d 265, where a t o u r i s t was gored by a b u f f a l o , p l a i n t i f f had stopped a t a p u b l i c r e s o r t owned by d e f e n d a n t . animals. This r e s o r t had a c o r r a l c o n t a i n i n g P l a i n t i f f s t o o d n e a r t h e f e n c e and a b u f f a l o charged i n t o it, injuring plaintiff. The j u r y found i n f a v o r of p l a i n t i f f . The complaint a l l e g e d t h e d e f e n d a n t , i n keeping w i l d a n i m a l s , was an i n s u r e r of p l a i n t i f f ' s s a f e t y and was s t r i c t l y l i a b l e f o r i n j u r i e s . The complaint a l s o a l l e g e d a g e n e r a l n e g l i g e n c e t h e o r y and denied any n e g l i g e n c e on p l a i n t i f f ' s p a r t . Defendant a l l e g e d c o n t r i b u t o r y n e g l i g e n c e and assumption of r i s k . The t r i a l c o u r t r u l e d o u t a l l of d e f e n d a n t ' s proof on c o n t r i b u t o r y n e g l i g e n c e , assumption of r i s k , and knowledge of t h e v i c i o u s n a t u r e of t h e animal. The c o u r t g r a n t e d a d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t i n f a v o r of p l a i n t i f f on t h e i s s u e o f l i a b i l i t y ; a r u l i n g r e q u e s t e d o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t i n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e b u t which i t c o r r e c t l y denied. I n Hansen t h i s Court concluded t h a t t h e law of n e g l i g e n c e was p r e f e r a b l e and t h e t r i a l c o u r t was i n e r r o r i n l i m i t i n g t h e evidence of defendant and d i r e c t i n g a v e r d i c t on l i a b i l i t y i n f a v o r of p l a i n t i f f . While Hansen e s t a b l i s h e d t h e law of n e g l i g e n c e , i t d i d n o t p u r p o r t t o e s t a b l i s h t h e s t a n d a r d of c a r e . However, Hansen d i d c i t e w i t h approval 2 Harper and James, The Law of T o r t s , p. 839, that the : "* * degree of c a r e which must be e x e r c i s e d i n t h e keeping of an animal w i l l depend upon i t s n a t u r e and w i l l obviously be h i g h e r i n t h e c a s e of a t i g e r than z dog. I I I n Thompson v. Yellowstone Livestock, 133 Mont. 403, 413, 324 P.2d 412, t h e Court quoted w i t h approval from P o t t e r v. Thompson, 74 Cal.App.2d 474, 477, 169 P.2d 40, where defendants were charged w i t h n e g l i g e n c e i n f a i l i n g t o provide a reasonably s a f e e n c l o s u r e and adequate s u p e r v i s i o n of t h e customers. T h i s Court s a i d i n Thompson : "When t h e cow went on a rampage, i n s t e a d ofcpening the gate f o r i t t o escape, o r attempting t o otherwise p r o t e c t t h e s p e c t a t o r s , t h e a t t e n d a n t s I g o t o u t The defendant C l i n t of t h e r e a s quick a s p o s s i b l e . ' Thompson, admitted t h a t he was p r e s e n t on an occasion about a y e a r and a h a l f b e f o r e t h i s i n c i d e n t , and saw a n o t h e r cow escape from t h e e n c l o s u r e by going over o r through t h e f e n c e 'between t h e c a b l e s . t "At t h e condlusion of t h e t r i a l , t h e j u r y r e t u r n e d a v e r d i c t i n f a v o r of t h e defendants, f i n d i n g t h a t t h e y were ' n o t g u i l t y of negligence. I A judgment was rendered accordingly. A motion f o r new t r i a l was g r a n t e d on t h e s p e c i f i e d ground o f i n s u f f i c i e n c y of t h e evidence t o support t h e v e r d i c t . From t h a t o r d e r , an appeal- was taken. The a p p e l l a t e c o u r t s a i d [74 CaleApp.(2d) 474, 169 P.2d 421: "'The c h i e f c o n t e n t i o n of t h e a p p e l l a n t s i s t h a t t h e c o u r t abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n g r a n t i n g a new t r i a l s i n c e t h e u n c o n t r a d i c t e d evidence c l e a r l y shows t h a t t h e y were n o t g u i l t y o f n e g l i g e n c e , and t h a t t h e y had no knowledge of t h e f a c t t h a t t h e cow i n q u e s t i o n was nervous o r dangerous t o t h e s p e c t a t o r s . "'1n determining whether t h e defendants were g u i l t y of n e g l i g e n c e which proximately caused t h e i n j u r i e s complained o f , i t was t h e duty o f t h e j u r o r s , and t h e t r i a l judge upon t h e motion f o r new t r i a l , t o c o n s i d e r a l l of t h e proved f a c t s and circumstances surrounding t h e i n c i d e n t . The q u e s t i o n t o be determined i s , what would a reasonably prudent person be r e q u i r e d t o do, under such circumstances, f o r t h e p r o t e c t i o n of h i s i n v i t e d customers. The f a c t t h a t t h e defendants d i d n o t a c t u a l l y know t h a t t h e p a r t i c u l a r cow i n q u e s t i o n was f r a c t i o u s , nervous o r dangerous does n o t n e c e s s a r i l y a c q u i t them of negligence on t h a t s c o r e . They were e x p e r t a u c t i o n e e r s of c a t t l e , who had been i n t h a t b u s i n e s s f o r s e v e r a l y e a r s . They had handled and s o l d hund r e d s of cows. W must assume t h a t some of t h e animals e were l i k e l y t o become f r a c t i o u s , i r r i t a b l e , nervous and dangerous. The defendants handled and s o l d c a t t l e which we assume had v a r i o u s temperaments, t e n d e n c i e s and n a t u r e s . On a former occasion a n o t h e r f r a c t i o u s cow broke through t h e enclosure. I t i s n o t unreasonable t o assume t h a t t h e defendants should have a n t i c i p a t e d t h a t some of t h e cows would become u n c o n t r o l l a b l e and r e s t o r t t o dangerous beh a v i o r when d r i v e n i n t o t h e small e n c l o s u r e i n t h e presence of s p e c t a t o r s . Since i t was t h e d u t y o f t h e defendants t o provide a reasonably s a f e e n c l o s u r e , i t i s a proper i n q u i r y a s t o whether a f e n c e 4 f e e t 8 i n c h e s h i g h , w i t h a sagging upper c a b l e , i s reasonably s a f e f o r t h e p r o t e c t i o n of p r o s p e c t i v e customers who a r e s e a t e d a d j a c e n t t h e r e t o . The c o u r t might r e a s o n a b l y i n f e r t h a t t h e e n c l o s u r e was u n s a f e , and t h a t defendants should have added a n o t h e r c a b l e t o i n c r e a s e t h e h e i g h t of t h e f e n c e , o r a t l e a s t t h a t t h e y should have t i g h t e n e d t h e sagging t o p c a b l e . The c o u r t a l s o had a r i g h t t o assume i t was t h e d u t y of t h e defendants t o provide a t t e n d a n t s t o reasonably guard t h e c a t t l e i n t h e e n c l o s u r e , and t h a t , i n s t e a d of f l e e i n g f o r t h e i r own s a f e t y when t h e cow went upon a rampage, t h e y should have opened t h e g a t e t o permit t h e animal t o escape, o r o t h e r w i s e r e s t r a i n i t f o r t h e p r o t e c t i o n of t h e spectators. 11 ' These and o t h e r q u e s t i o n were proper f o r t h e judge t o c o n s i d e r on t h e motion f o r new t r i a l . C e r t a i n l y t h i s c o u r t may n o t hold a s a m a t t e r o f law t h a t t h e judge abused h i s d i s c r e t i o n i n g r a n t i n g a new t r i a l merely because he d i s a g r e e d w i t h t h e j u r y r e g a r d i n g t h e d e f e n d a n t s ' e x e r c i s e of o r d i n a r y c a r e where t h e r e i s a s e r i o u s c o n f l i c t of evidence upon t h a t s u b j e c t , a s t h e r e was i n t h i s c a s e . 11 1 The p l a i n t i f f , Marie P o r t e r , was an i n v i t e e . She was a p r o s p e c t i v e purchaser of c a t t l e a t t h e a u c t i o n s a l e which was b e i n g conducted by t h e defendants. It was d e f e n d a n t s ' duty t o e x e r c i s e r e a s o n a b l e c a r e t o maintain s u p e r v i s i o n and a reasonably s a f e e n c l o s u r e and s e a t s f o r t h e customers.* *"I * I n t h e f o r e o i n g quoted c a s e t h e s t a n d a r d o f c a r e d i s c u s s e d was r e a s o n a b l e c a r e t o maintain s u p e r v i s i o n and a reasonably s a f e enclos u r e and s e a t s f o r customers. Thompson involved a l i v e s t o c k a u c t i o n r i n g where a customer was i n h i s s e a t and a cow jumped a f e n c e l a n d i n g on t h e customer. I n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e a p p e l l a n t c i t e s Thompson a s s u p p o r t i n g t h e r e f u s a l of an i n s t r u c t i o n on o r d i n a r y c a r e . However, t h e opinion i n Thompson shows t h a t t h e s t a n d a r d o f c a r e i n s t r u c t i o n r e f u s e d was a s t o t h e knowledge o f a p r o p e n s i t y o r tendency of t h e cow. As a m a t t e r of f a c t , Thompson used a r e a s o n a b l e o r o r d i n a r y s t a n d a r d o f care. The judgment t h e r e was f o r p l a i n t i f f and we affirmed. Thompson i s somewhat s i m i l a r t o t h e i n s t a n t case. a p p e l l a n t h e r e s t a t e s t h a t t h e animal i n Thompson Even though causing the injury was n o t a v i c i o u s b u l l , b u t a simple cow, t h e r e s u l t i s t h e same. Here, t h e b u l l was n o t a t t a c k i n g b u t jumping, j u s t a s t h e f r a c t i o u s though simple cow d i d i n Thompson. Also, and even more s i g n i f i c a n t , i n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e t h e owner of t h e animal i s t h e only remaining defendant whereas i n Thompson t h e owner o f t h e animal was n o t a defendant. Rather, t h e r e t h e Livestock Commission Co., who operated t h e s a l e s r i n g - - l i k e t h e county and f a i r board here-- was t h e defendant. I n Thompson, i n d i s c u s s i n g t h e motioncf defendant f o r n o n s u i t , t h i s Court s a i d : It I t i s a g e n e r a l r u l e t h a t i n a motion f o r n o n s u i t , t h e evidence must be accepted and taken most f a v o r a b l y t o p l a i n t i f f , and t h a t even d o u b t f u l i n f e r e n c e s and deductions must be r e s o l v e d f a v o r a b l y toward p l a i n t i f f . The evidence i n t h i s c a s e a s i n t r o d u c e d by p l a i n t i f f , c l e a r l y e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t he was p r e s e n t a s a b u s i n e s s i n v i t e e and t h a t i t was d e f e n d a n t ' s duty t o use o r d i n a r y c a r e t o keep t h e premises i n a reasonably s a f e c o n d i t i o n . T h i s f a c t having been very s t r o n g l y e s t a b l i s h e d , t h e judge p r o p e r l y o v e r r u l e d and denied d e f e n d a n t ' s motion f o r a nonsuit. II I n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e , t h e remaining p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y has t h e b e n e f i t of t h a t reasoning. A s h e r e t o f o r e pointed o u t t h e w l m t a r y d i s m i s s a l of Lewis and Clark County and t h e F a i r Board, l e a v e s only t h e duty of Golden S t a t e Rodeo Co. t o be comidered h e r e . What f a i l u r e i n t h e e x e r c i s e of any s t a n d a r d of c a r e , reasonably o r o t h e r w i s e , was proven h e r e a s t o Golden S t a t e Rodeo Co. ? The j u r y found none. A p p e l l a n t ' s second i s s u e r e g a r d i n g i n s t r u c t i o n s q u a r r e l s w i t h t h e t r i a l c o u r t g i v i n g an i n s t r u c t i o n on o r d i n a r y c a r e of a r e a s o n a b l e and prudent person a c t i n g under t h e circumstances. Appellant u r g e s t h a t a h i g h e r degree of c a r e would be r e q u i r e d t h a n o r d i n a r y c a r e . HOW- e v e r , a g a i n t h e s i g n i f i c a n c e of t h e volunary d i s m i s s a l of t h e o t h e r defendants appears. With only Golden S t a t e Rodeo Co. t o c o n s i d e r , t h e r e was an absence of proof of any n e g l i g e n c e a s a proximate cause so t h a t t h e g i v i n g of t h e i n s t r u c t i o n could n o t have been p r e j u d i c i a l . While we r u l e h e r e t h a t no evidence of n e g l i g e n c e was proven a g a i n s t t h e remaining defendant, we a r e n o t t o b e understood t h a t an i n s t r u c t i o n on o r d i n a r y o r r e a s o n a b l e c a r e would be s u f f i c i e n t had t h e r e been proof of any n e g l i g e n c e a s t o t h a t remaining defendant. W a r e impressed w i t h t h e d i s c u s s i o n by t h e Utah Court i n e Tom v. Days of '47, I n c . , 16 Utah 2d 386, 401 P.2d 946, 948, where t h a t Court s a i d : " ~ e f e n d a n tcontends t h a t t h e c o u r t committed p r e j u d i c i a l e r r o r because i t unduly emphasized p l a i n t i f f ' s t h e o r y and p r a c t i c a l l y d i r e c t e d a v e r d i c t on t h e i s s u e of n e g l i gence because i t i n s t r u c t e d t h e j u r y t h a t defendant had a duty t o c o n s t r u c t a f e n c e t h a t would be s a f e f o r t h e purpose f o r which i t was i n t e n d e d , t h a t i s , t o Iteep t h e b u l l o u t of t h e b l e a c h e r s , and t h a t i t had a f u r t h e r duty t o u s e r e a s o n a b l e d i l i g e n c e t o i n s p e c t t h e fence t o s e e t h a t i t was i n proper c o n d i c t i o n t o f u l f i l l t h i s requirement, and t h a t i f i t f a i l e d i n e i t h e r of t h e s e d u t i e s t h e defendant would be n e g l i g e n t . Then, a f t e r g i v i n g t h i s i n s t r u c t i o n t h e c o u r t unduly emphasized p l a i n t i f f ' s evidence by f u r t h e r i n s t r u c t i n g t h e j u r y t h a t i t must f i n d whether defendant was n e g l i g e n t i n b u i l d i n g t h e fence w i t h t h e c h a i n l i n k w i r e on t h e grandstand s i d e o f t h e p o s t s , u s i n g t h e t y p e of f a s t e n i n g it d i d and i n f a i l i n g t o have a r a i l o r t e n s i o n w i r e o r o t h e r o b s t r u c t i o n between t h e ground and t h e bottom o f t h e fence. 11 I t i s t o be noted t h a t t h e u n c o n t r a d i c t e d evidence was t o t h e e f f e c t t h a t t h e Brahma b u l l was t r a i n e d t o be b e l l i g e r e n t and i n i t s performance a t t h e rodeo was goaded t o be mean. For show purposes, t h e meaner t h e b u l l i s , t h e more s p e c t a c u l a r i t i s considered t o be f o r t h e audience. It i s a l s o t o b e noted t h a t t h e r e was no q u e s t i o n a s t o how t h e fence was b u i l t o r t h e t y p e of m a t e r i a l s used i n t h e fence. The only c o n t r o v e r s y i n r e g a r d t o t h e f e n c e was i t s adequacy f o r t h e purpose f o r which it was b u i l t , t h a t i s , t o keep t h e performing a n i mals i n t h e a r e n a and away from s p e c t a t o r s . Both p l a i n t i f f and defendant r e s e n t e d t h e views o f e x p e r t s on t h i s problem. P l a i n t i f f s e x p e r t s pointed o u t what t h e y cons i d e r e d i t s d e f i c i e n c i e s and d e f e n d a n t ' s e x p e r t s t e s t i f i e d t h a t a s b u i l t , t h e fence was a s good o r b e t t e r f o r t h e purpose intended than u s u a l l y i s found i n o t h e r p l a c e s where rodeos a r e h e l d . The j u r y found t h e opinions of p l a i n t i f f ' s e x p e r t s more convincing. I: It It cannot be g a i n s a i d t h a t t o be f r e e of n e g l i g e n c e a h i g h e r degree of c a r e i s r e q u i r e d of a possessor f o r t h e containment o f a known v i c i o u s o r dangerous animal than i n t h e c a s e of an o r d i n a r y , domestic animal w i t h l e s s known dangerous p r o p e n s i t i e s . It i s r e a d i l y f o r e s e e a b l e t h a t a v i c i o u s animal i s h i g h l y dangerous t o persons w i t h whom i t might come i n c o n t a c t , and, t h e r e f o r e , t h e possessor must u s e g r e a t e r c a r e t o f o r e s t a l l such c o n t a c t . The c o u r t ' s i n s t r u c t i o n s were consonant w i t h t h i s g r e a t e r duty of c a r e b u t l e f t i t t o t h e j u r y t o determine whether defendant had used such c a r e i n t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n and i n s p e c t i o n of t h e fence so t h a t i t was s a f e f o r t h e u s e f o r which i t was intended. The g i s t of an a c t i o n f o r i n j u r i e s a g a i n s t t h e possessor o f a dangerous animal i s t h e f a i l u r e t o u s e c a r e commensurate w i t h i t s known v i c i o u s t e n d e n c i e s t o keep t h e animal s e c u r e l y contained.The f a i l u r e t o u s e such c a ~s n e g l i g e n c e , and i f such n e g l i g e n c e i s t h e proximate i cause o f t h e i n j u r i e s s u s t a i n e d by t h e p l a i n t i f f , t h e possessor o f t h e animal i s l i a b l e . The f a c t t h a t p l a i n t i f f d i d n o t pay f o r viewing t h e performance and may have been a mere l i c e n s e e d i d n o t change d e f e n d a n t ' s l i a b i l i t y . Unl i k e the r u l e s i n c a s e s imposed on p o s s e s s o r s of land f o r i n j u r i e s caused by t h e dangerous p h y s i c a l c o n d i t i o n s of t h e l a n d s , no d i s t i n c t i o n between b u s i n e s s i n v i t e e s and l i c e n s e e s a r e made a s t o l i a b i l i t y of t h e p o s s e s s o r of a dangerous domestic animal f o r i n j u r e s s u s t a i n e d by e i t h e r . 1l I n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e p l a i n t i f f o f f e r e d an i n s t r u c t i o n from t h e Montana J u r y I n s t r u c t i o n Guide, No. 110.04, which r e a d s : "ANIMALS-INJURY BY VICIOUS DOMESTIC ANIMAL. ".Jury I n s t r u c t i o n No. 110.04 I1 One who owns o r keeps an animal known by him t o b e of v i c i o u s t e n d e n c i e s and dangerous t o people i s l i a b i l e t o a person i n j u r e d by such animal, u n l e s s t h e i n j u r e d p a r t y i s g u i l t y of n e g l i g e n c e c o n t r i b u t i n g d i r e c t l y t o t h e i n j u r y . The i n j u r e d p a r t y i s g u i l t y o f such n e g l i g e n c e i f : II (1) He has done something a r e a s o n a b l e person should have known was l i k e l y t o provoke an a t t a c k by t h e animal; o r "(2) He knew of an unusual c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of t h e animal and d i d something which a r e a s o n a b l e person could reasonably expect t o provoke an a t t a c k by t h a t p a r t i c u l a r animal; o r I1 ( 3 ) He i n t e n t i o n a l l y and unreasonably exposed himself t o i n j u r y , e i t h e r knowing t h e customary n a t u r e of t h a t kind of animal o r knowing t h e p a r t i c u l a r n a t u r e of t h e spec i f i c animal. II That i n s t r u c t i o n would make t h e owner of t h e b u l l an i n s u r e r u n l e s s one o f t h e t h r e e e x c e p t i o n s a s t o c o n t r i b u t o r y n e g l i g e n c e a p p l i e d . The i n s t r u c t i o n was n o t a p p l i c a b l e i n any event. Finding no e r r o r , t h e judgment i s a f f i r m e d . Justice W Concur: e ' % . " - - - ~ / H o ~ . M . ~ .Takes S o r t e , D i s t r i c t Judge, s i t t i n g f o r Chief J u s t i c e James T. Harrison. (J Honorable M. James S o r t e , D i s t r i c t Judge, s i t t i n g f o r Chief J u s t i c e James T. H a r r i s o n , s p e c i a l l y c o n c u r r i n g : I concur i n t h e r e s u l t . However, i t seems t o m t h a t defendant e Golden S t a t e Rodeo C o . was t h e o n l y defendant t h a t knew of t h e p a r t i c u l a r dangerous p r o p e n s i t i e s of t h e b u l l "Yellow Fever". I f t h i s q u e s t i o n had been p r e s e n t e d t o t h e jury t h e r e might have been a d i f f e r e n t r e s u l t . M r . J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly d i s s e n t i n g : I dissent. The m a j o r i t y o p i n i o n seems tb conclude t h a t t h e d i s m i s s a l of t h e F a i r Board and Lewis and C l a r k County, l e a v i n g t h e Golden S t a t e Rodeo C o b a l o n e a s d e f e n d a n t , excluded a l l of t h e d e f e n d a n t s who owed a d u t y t o t h e p a t r o n s a t t h e rodeo because i t i s claimed t h e rodeo company had no c o n t r o l over t h e s p e c t a t o r s . I disagree. I f t h e rodeo company's d u t y was a r r i v e d a t i n t h i s manner, i t could e x h i b i t i t s " b u l l " w i t h o u t any fence. I f i n d no a u t h o r i t y t o s u p p o r t t h e d o c t r i n e t h a t t h e manner i n which t h e known v i c i o u s b u l l approached t h e f e n c e e n c l o s u r e , through i t o r over i t , c o u l d c h a r a c t e r i z e him l e g a l l y a s a "fractious" bull. I f e e l t h e owners and e x h i b i t o r s of t h i s k i n d of animal have a d u t y and a r e h e l d t o a h i g h e r degree of c a r e t h a n s e t f o r t h i n t h e m a j o r i t y o p i n i o n , r e g a r d l e s s of t h e d u t y o r n e g l i -
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
