GRABENSTEIN v SUNSTED

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NO. 88-545 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1989 BETTY GRABENSTEIN, Plaintiff and Appellant, -vsTERRY SUNSTED, Defendant and Respondent. ~istrictCourt of the Twentieth ~udicial~istrict, In and for the County of Sanders, Judge presiding. The Honorable C. R. ~ c ~ e i l , APPEAL FROM: COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellant: M. ~ i c h a r dGebhardt, Missoula, Montana For Respondent: Robert I,. Fletcher, Thompson Falls, Montana Submitted on Briefs: Decided: \ Filed: o , C'3 .. . . 03 h . C" r. I , ' Clerk &! :: ! . 1, LL. cJ . L " 'Z T ; .* ;-- L*J@ 03 C.iJ .8 . ,I 1 .. ..-.. .. . ., .. ,. .,.- ." ". -C I April 6, 1989 May 2, 1989 Mr. J u s t i c e F r e d J. Weber d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n o f t h e Court.. The p l a i n t i f f , M r s . Grabenstein, initiated this suit in j u s t i c e c o u r t t o r e c o v e r t h e v a l u e o f h e r dog which was s h o t and k i l l e d by t h e d e f e n d a n t , M r . t h e dog i n h i s c h i c k e n coop. S u n s t e d , upon d i s c o v e r y o f F o l l o w i n g a t r i a l d e novo, t h e D i s t r i c t Court f o r t h e Twentieth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Sanders County, e n t e r e d judgment f o r t h e d e f e n d a n t and awarded him $ 3 0 damages f o r t h e l o s s o f h i s c h i c k e n s a n d $ 4 5 . 5 0 f o r c o s t s incurred in litigation. appeals. From t h a t judgment, the plaintiff W e affirm. The i s s u e s a r e : Did t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t err i n d e t e r m i n i n g t h a t t h e 1. d e f e n d a n t had a r i g h t t o s h o o t t h e dog which was k i l l i n g h i s poultry? Did t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r i n i t s r e f u s a l t o r e c e i v e 2. p r o p o s e d f i n d i n g s o f f a c t o r c o n c l u s i o n s o f law and t o w a i v e c o u n s e l ' s r e q u e s t f o r o r a l argument? Both p a r t i e s live in a rural s e t t i n g approximately 5 Defendant S u n s t e d ' s p r o p e r t y i s m i l e s from Heron, Montana. l o c a t e d j u s t o v e r 1 . 5 m i l e s from t h e G r a b e n s t e i n s , where t h e Sunsteds c a r r y on v a r i o u s t h e r a i s i n g of chickens. agricultural pursuits, including The G r a b e n s t e i n s w e r e t h e owners o f a l a r g e , b l a c k L a b r a d o r r e t r i e v e r named Duke, whose f a t e i s t h e s u b j e c t of t h i s appeal. While p e r f o r m i n g h i s morning c h o r e s o n J u l y 1 6 , M. r S u n s t e d h e a r d a dog b a r k i n t h e v i c i n i t y o f h i s c h i c k e n coop. Mr. Having p r e v i o u s l y e x p e r i e n c e d p r o b l e m s w i t h c o y o t e s , S u n s t e d g r a b b e d a s h o t g u n from t h e b a r n b e f o r e p r o c e e d i n g t o t h e coop. O u t s i d e t h e coop h e found f i v e d e a d c h i c k e n s . The d o o r t o t h e coop was b r o k e n down. was a f u l l y e n c l o s e d s t r u c t u r e , The 1985, black Labrador, which I n s + - d e t h e c o o p , which six more c h i c k e n s l a y d e a d . was 1ater claimed by the G r a b e n s t e i n s t o be "Duke," was found i n t h e c o r n e r t r y i n g t~ catch the last remaining Sunsted s h o t t h e dog, live chicken in the k i l l i n g him i n s t a n t l y , t h e i n c i d e n t t o t h e deputy s h e r i f f . coop. Mr. then reported The d e p u t y t r a c e d t h e o w n e r s h i p o f t h e dog t o t h e G r a h e n s t e i n s , who w e r e n o t i f i e d of t h e shooting. Mr. S u n s t e d d i s p o s e d o f t h e dog h i m s e l f . The G r a h e n s t e i n s l a t e r s o u g h t damages f o r t h e Toss o f n u k e , e s t i m a t i n g h i s v a l u e a t $3,500. Did the Di-strict Court err in determini-ng that the d e f e n d a n t had a r i g h t t o s h o o t t h e dog which was k i l l i n g h i s poultry? The common l a w r u l e on t h i s m a t t e r i s a s f o l l . o w s : ... t o j u s t i f y t h e k i l l i n g o f a dog i n d e f e n s e o f p r o p e r t y t h e r e must h e a n a p p a r e n t n e c e s s i t y f o r t h e d e f e n s e , h o n e s t l y b e l i e v e d t o be r e a l , and t h e a c t s o f d e f e n s e must i n t h e m s e l v e s b e r e a s o n a b l e , o r i n o t h e r w o r d s , it i s n e c e s s a r y t o show t h a t t h e d a n g e r from i t s a t t a c k was imminent a t t h e t i m e , a n d t h a t t h e i n j u r y c o u l d n o t o t h e r w i s e have b e e n prevented. Trenka v. Moos (1946), 118 Mont. 607, 613, 168 P . 2 d 837, 840-41. Trenka was t h e f i r s t c a s e i n Montana i n v o l v i n g a "dog i n t h e c h i c k e n coop" s c e n a r i o . This Court s t a t e d t h a t a person p r o t e c t i n g h i s p r o p e r t y h a s t h e r i g h t t o a c t upon t h e r e a s o n a b l e a p p e a r a n c e o f t h i n g s and i f t h e r e i s r e a s o n a b l e c a u s e t o believe person that necessity is not liable. for killing 168 P.2d at the 841. dog exists, that I n Trenka, this C o u r t h e l d t h a t t h e c h i c k e n owner was n o t r e a s o n a b l y j u s t i f i e d i n s h o o t i n g t h e dog b e c a u s e t h e dog was n o t i n t h e a c t o f molesting t h e fowl a t t h e time t h e f a t a l s h o t w a s f i r e d . 168 P.2d a t 841. Although p l a i n t i f f i n t h i s c a s e a r g u e s t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s c o n c l u s i o n s h o u l d h a v e been t h e same a s t h a t reached case are i n Trenka, w e conclude t h a t t h e f a c t s o f t h i s significantly different from those presented in Trenka s o a s t o j u s t i f y a d i f f e r e n t r e s u l t . When t h e d e f e n d a n t was a s k e d t o d e s c r i b e b ~ h a t t h e dog was d o i n g when h e f i r s t saw him, h e s t a t e d : W e l l , h e was k i n d o f i n a pounce p o s i t i o n w i t h h i s f r o n t down. And t h e r e was a c h i c k e n t h a t was i n t h e c o r n e r t r y i n g t o escape h i s goings on. And h e was b i t i n g a t i t and t h e c h i c k e n would f l y and h e l d r e a c h up -- now h e was a b i g dog l i k e , you know, w e l l o v e r 1 0 0 pounds I would g u e s s . I really d o n ' t know b u t t h a t ' s what I would g u e s s . And h e would r i s e up t r y i n g t o c a t c h t h e c h i c k e n and t h e c h i c k e n would come d.own. And o f c o u r s e i n t h a t s m a l l o f c o n f i n e s w i t h w a t e r and f e e d e r i n t h e r e , h e had it p r e t t y well., you know, cornered. While t h e d e f e n d a n t d i d n o t a c t u a l l y see t h e c h i c k e n i n t h e d o g ' s mouth, of h e d e s c r i b e d . t h e b i r d a s b e i n g "poked f u l l t e e t h h o l e s and p r e t t y well. chewed up" a s i f h a s had a h o l d o f it . . ." The d e f e n d a n t e v e n t u a l l y had t o k i l l t h e c h i c k e n b e c a u s e o f i t s mangled s t a t e . offered to the effect that "something Duke was a Testimony was g e n t l e clog who was accustomed t o l i v j - n g and e v e n s l e e p i n g w i t h c h i c k e n s . Re- g a r d l e s s o f t h i s t e s t i m o n y a s t o Duke1s s t o i c c h a r a c t e r , t h e l o w e r c o u r t found t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t had no p r i o r knowledge o f t h e d o g ' s temperament o r d i s p o s i t i o n t o w a r d p o u l . t r y when h e came upon t h e s i g h t o f a dog c o r n e r i n g one c h i c k e n s u r r o u n d e d by numerous dead chickens. The e v i d . e n c e s u p p o r t s t h i s f i n d i n g t h a t d e f e n d a n t had no r e a s o n t o b e l i e v e t h a t t h e dog would j u s t a s soon s l e e p w i t h c h i c k e n s a s t e r r o r i z e them. The p l a i n t i f f a r g u e s t h a t b e c a u s e e l e v e n c h i c k e n s a?-- r e a d y l a y d e a d and t h e o n l y p r o p e r t y r e m a i n i n g i n p e r i l was a 9;?.50 c h i c k e n , i t was n o t r e a s o n a b l e s h o o t t h ~7 q i n w h a t p l a i n t i f f Co f o r t h e defendant t o c h a r a c t e r i z e s a s a n a c t of vengeance. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t d e t e r m i n e d o t h e r w i s e , and w e w i l l n o t s e t a s i d e t h a t d e t e r m i n a t i o n i f i t i s s u p p o r t e d by s u b s t a n t i a l c r e d i b l e evidence. 758 P.2d 292, 293, 45 St.Rep. Again, P a r k e r v . E l d e r (Mont. 1 9 8 8 ) , 1305, 1307. t h e d e f e n d a n t c a u g h t t h e dog l a t e r i d e n t i f i e d a s Duke i n t h e a c t o f m o l e s t i n g one OF h i s chickens. The e v i - d e n c e e s t a b l i s h e s t h a t it r e a s o n a b l v a p p e a r e d t o t h e d e f e n d a n t t h a t t h e dog had b r o k e n i n t o a ful1.y e n c l o s e d c h i c k e n h o u s e , had k i l l e d 11 c h i c k e n s , was a t t a c k i n g a 1 2 t h c h i c k e n , could not door, be contained in the coop because a n d t h a t t h e s i z e a n d unknown temperament o f t h e dog made p h y s i c a l r e s t r a i n t u n r e a l i s t i c ous. i t s broken of TJnder reasonable those circumstances, and p o t e n t i a l l y d a n g e r - we that it was f o r d e f e n d a n t t o s h o o t t h e dog u n d e r t h e common law r u l e a s s e t f o r t h i n T r e n k a . credible conclude evidence exists to W e hold t h a t s u b s t a n t i a l support the District Court's determination. The p l a i n t i f f a r g u e s t h a t t h e common law r u l e i s a b r o - g a t e d by s t a t u t e i n Montana. $S 81-7-401 MCA, jures and 402, MCA. The two r e l e v a n t s t a t u t e s a r e The first statute, $ 81-7-401, a l l o w s t h e k i l l i n g o f a dog who k i l l s , wounds, o r in- any l i v e s t o c k n o t belonging t o t h e d o g ' s master. G r a n i e r v. Chagnon ( 1 9 4 9 ) , 1 2 2 Mont. 327, 203 P.2d In 982, t h i s Court h e l d t h a t t h e d e f i n i t i o n o f l i v e s t o c k under t h i s s t a t u t e i n e f f e c t a t t h a t t i m e does n o t i n c l u d e fowl. P l a i n t i f f a r g u e s t h a t S 81-7-402, MCA, i s t h e appl-icable s t a t u t e which s u b j e c t s t h e owner o f a p r e d a t o r dog t o L i a b i l i t y f o r damages o n l y . That s t a t u t e reads i n r e l e v a n t p a r t : (1) The owner o f l i v e s t o c k o r p o u l t r y i n j u r e d o r k i l l e d by a n y dog may r e c o v e r a s l i q u i d a t e d damages from t h e owner o f t h e dog t h e a c t u a l v a l u e o f t h e a n i m a l s k i l l e d o r t h e v a l u e o f t h e damages s u s t a i n e d by r e a s o n o f t h e i n j u r i e s a s t h e c a s e may be. Because neither this statute or 5 81-7-401, MCA, authorize the killing of a dog who destroys fowl, the plaintiff argues that the common law rule has been abrogated and defendant's only remedy is that of damages under S 81-7-402, MCA. We disagree. At common law, an owner of domestic fowl has a right to lrill a dog attacking or menacing their safety if such is necessary for their protection, and that common law right "is not abrogated by a statute which creates a right in a nonowner of certain enumerated animals, not including fowls, to kill a dog attacking such animals." 3A C.J.S. Animals, S 292. These statutes do not limit, either expressly or impliedly, the poultry owner's right at common law to kill an attacking dog when such a l i ! i g is reasonably justified. cl.n Rather, the statutes provide additional relief after the fact and address specific si.tuations not covered by the common law. We hold that the defendant's common law ri.ght to kill plaintiff ' s dog was not abrogated by Montana's stat.utes on the subject. Did the District Court err in its refusal to receive proposed findings of fact or conclusions of law and to waive counsel's request for oral argument? At the closing of the case, plaintiff's counsel offered to submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law which were refused by the court. Instead, the court offered five minutes to each party in which to be heard. Neither party took advantage of that time. We therefore conclude that no basi.s exists upon which to al.leae error as to the issue of oral. argument.. Furthermore, there is no mandatory requirement that the Dj-strict Court accept proposed Findings of fact or conclusions of law. Rule 52, M.R.Civ.P., provides that: The court may require any party to submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law for the court's consideration and the court may adopt any such proposed findings or conclusions as long as they are supported by the evidence and law of the case. (Emphasis added.) Here, the District Court properly exercised its discretion in declining tc accept proposed findings or conclusions. Affirmed.

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.