cowgirl8":2ug71vzf said:
I know someone whose cows were getting out on a fm road..His fence was junk, so he constantly had cows on the road. Well, one day someone hit a cow at night. Got hurt pretty bad. Now, we've all been told that if you hit a cow on a state highway, its the owner of the cows fault, but not on a farm to market road. .
This has been beat to death here at CT.
Underlined--------Whoever told you that is in error. That, is an erroneous and (if your county has enacted a stock law) a very misleading statement. In fact, it is opposite of what the State of Texas law says, and that is what causes this "no liability on Farm to Market roads" misconception. Good luck with that in court. The state itself of course, has no stock law--it's left up to the counties to write and enact one. All but a handfull of counties have a stock law on the books and unless your county is one of the few that doesn't have a stock law on the books, a motorist can sue and recieve a judgement if it is found a stock owner in your county has allowed stock to run loose on a FM road. .
What you are referring to is the Texas State stance on livestock. The state itself basically says Texas is still open range, and the State went as far as writing legislation requiring citizens to fence open range animals OUT of their private property. Open Range--It's true--as far as the state is concerned. Texas Attorney General Gregg Abbott shocked lots of un-informed people with that comment a few years ago, but it is, again, as far as State of Texas statutes goes, a true statement. That is not the end tho.
It's left solely up to the counties to enact their own stock law (or not) , how it's written and what the enforcement procedures or penalties might be, but the county laws cannot abridge or over-ride any exception the State's statute law may be, and there are, by Texas State Statute, two exceptions to the open range doctrine.
Exception 1: (this is the allowance for the county to become closed range instead of open range)
The first exception to the open range doctrine concerns what are commonly referred to as "stock
laws". A stock law is a specific law that prohibits the open running of an enumerated type of livestock in a
county or portion of a county. Chapter 143.073 of the Agriculture Code permits local elections to adopt a law (a.k.a. "stock law"),
where a person may not permit any animal of the class mentioned in the proclamation to run at large in the county or area in which the election was held.
A typical stock law will prohibit horses, mules, donkeys, sheep, goats, and cattle from running at large. Most elections for stock laws occurred between 1910 and 1930. Once enacted, the region covered by the stock law is effectively changed from "open range" to "closed range".
Exception #2.
The second exception to the open range doctrine is referred to as the "highway" exception. The Texas Agriculture Code 143.102 states any person who owns or has responsibility for the control of a horse, mule, donkey, cow, bull, steer, hog, sheep, or goat may not knowingly permit the animal to traverse or roam at large, unattended, on the Highway. Sec. 143.102. RUNNING AT LARGE ON HIGHWAY PROHIBITED. A person who owns or has responsibility for the control of a horse, mule, donkey, cow, bull, steer, hog, sheep, or goat may not knowingly permit the animal to traverse or roam at large, unattended, on the right-of-way of a highway.
The statute defines a "highway" as "a U.S. highway or a state highway in this state, but does not include a numbered farm-to-market road
This /\ is where the murkiness comes in. The state, does not include FM roads in the Statute's highway exception, but almost every county does include them in their own enacted stock law. Unless your county has no stock law or specifically excludes FM roads from their county wide stock law, the stock owner CAN be held liable.
Look at it this way:
Most of the 100s of miles of roads in any Texas county are FM roads. Inasmuch as FM roads are already excluded from the State's Highway exception to open range doctrine, if it were the county's intention that FM roads be exempt, they would have no reason to even pass a stock law in the first place. They are already exempt -- by state law. Counties pass stock laws in order to specifically include FM roads in keeping livestock off the roads.
The very last section of this article is the only relevant part--Control of Animals/Road accidents.
Common legal issues in the Texas Beef cattle industry
It refers to WEDDLE v. HUDGINS, a legal liablity case in which a driver on a FM road in Wood County hit a cow and sued for damages caused to his pickup. He won. Why? Because there was a stock law enacted in that county. The cow's owner appealed the decision on several points, one being the State's open range Doctrine.
Here's what the state supreme court said about that:
Appellee sued appellant for damages for personal injuries and for damages to his pick-up truck resulting from a collision at night with a cow on Farm-to-Market Road No. 17 in Wood County on November 16, 1967. Trial was before a jury, and in accord with the verdict, judgment was rendered for appellee for $1,613.00. Appellant brings this appeal on four points.
Appellant's first point complains that there is no common law or statutory basis for a negligence finding against him because he owed no duty to appellee. We do not find this complaint in appellant's amended motion for new trial, and under Rule 374, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, it is waived. However, if this point is intended to raise a fundamental error, the question has been answered against appellant's contention. Article 1370a, Penal Code, V.A.T.S., makes it unlawful to knowingly permit a cow to traverse or roam at large, unattended, on the right-of-way of any U. S. Highway or State Highway but not including numbered Farm-to-Market roads. Article 1370, Penal Code, V.A.T.S., provides it is unlawful to knowingly permit any cattle to run at large where the provisions of the laws of this State have been adopted prohibiting such animals from running at large. When it is shown that the county had adopted the stock law, as it was shown here, the statutory basis for a finding of negligence would be the same as under Article 1370a, and the authorities have held that liability for a collision between an animal and an automobile may be imposed on the owner of the animal based upon his having unlawfully permitted it to run at large on a highway in violation of a statute and that such act was a proximate cause of the collision.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case? ... 6&as_vis=1
So, unless a county has NO stock law, or that county has one, but SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDES Farm to Market roads from said stock law, the owner of loose cattle CAN be held liable for any damages incurred because the animals were loose on the FM road.
