Chapter 607

NOTES OF DECISIONS

      The state owed no duty to remove livestock from the highway in an “open area.” Turrini v. Gulick, 16 Or App 167, 517 P2d 1230 (1974), Sup Ct review denied

      This chapter is a legislative determination that there is no duty to keep livestock off highways in “open range” areas unless specifically provided. Turrini v. Gulick, 16 Or App 167, 517 P2d 1230 (1974), Sup Ct review denied

      Although Oregon grazing law permits livestock to roam freely and graze at will in any area not designated as livestock district, Willamette National Forest is not open range. Bilderback v. United States, 558 F Supp 903 (1982)

LAW REVIEW CITATIONS: 8 WLJ 183 (1972)

      607.005 to 607.051

LAW REVIEW CITATIONS: 8 WLJ 183-198 (1972)

      607.010

NOTE: Repealed as of January 1, 2020

ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: Concerning annexation of property to a livestock district, (1976) Vol 37, p 1508; inclusion of federal lands in livestock district, (1998) Vol 49, p 137

      607.044

NOTES OF DECISIONS

      This is not a criminal statute and instructions in terms of criminal negligence are not appropriate; simple negligence is appropriate standard under this section. Schwerdt v. Myers, 297 Or 273, 683 P2d 547 (1984)

      Where plaintiff’s vehicle was damaged in collision with cow on public highway, this section did not establish basis for statutory liability. Dunlap v. Dickson, 307 Or 175, 765 P2d 203 (1988)

LAW REVIEW CITATIONS: 8 WLJ 183-198 (1972)

      607.045

NOTES OF DECISIONS

      Where defendants’ cattle ran at large on oat fields plaintiff leased from defendant and caused damage to oat crop, plaintiff proved facts sufficient to sustain action under this section and oat fields were “lands of another” within meaning of this section. Sprague v. Magruder Farms Inc., 40 Or App 331, 594 P2d 1324 (1979)

      Showing of simple negligence, rather than criminal negligence, is sufficient to support civil liability for injuries arising out of violation of this statute. Schwerdt v. Myers, 64 Or App 677, 669 P2d 1147 (1983), aff’d 297 Or 273, 683 P2d 547 (1984)

      Violation of this statute occurs and damages can be recovered under ORS 607.044 if animal is permitted to escape onto property which is in livestock district, regardless of whether escape originated or culpable conduct giving rise to it also took place in livestock district. Schwerdt v. Myers, 64 Or App 677, 669 P2d 1147 (1983), aff’d 297 Or 273, 683 P2d 547 (1984)

      Allegation that defendant acted with criminal negligence in permitting horse to run at large upon land of another within livestock district is sufficient to withstand demurrer. State v. Kelso, 70 Or App 393, 689 P2d 1307 (1984)

      Where plaintiff’s vehicle was damaged in collision with cow on public highway, this section did not establish basis for statutory liability but plaintiff could assert claim for common law negligence. Dunlap v. Dickson, 307 Or 175, 765 P2d 203 (1988)

      Where defendant convicted for criminal negligence in permitting his livestock to run at large on land of another in livestock district and criminal complaint filed for violation of this statute requires signature of district attorney, lack of signature is inconsequential and not reversible error because prosecution of case to guilty verdict shows complaint not frivolous. State v. Holdner, 96 Or App 445, 772 P2d 1382 (1989), Sup Ct review denied

LAW REVIEW CITATIONS: 8 WLJ 183-198, 203 (1972)

      607.505 to 607.527

LAW REVIEW CITATIONS: 8 WLJ 183-198 (1972)

      607.510

NOTES OF DECISIONS

      Violation of this section requires culpable mental state. Watzig v. Tobin, 292 Or 645, 642 P2d 651 (1982)