Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Maguire v. Yanke

Idaho Supreme Court

Decided December 5, 1978No. 12596Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partBakes, Justice

I disagree with the majority’s analysis of the law governing the liability of owners for damage caused by their trespassing livestock and its conclusion that defendant appellant Yanke cannot be held liable for the damage his cattle caused plaintiff respondent Maguire’s hayfield.

The majority is correct in stating that the English common law rule that an owner is strictly liable for trespasses of his animals has generally not been applicable in Idaho. However, the rule which the majority finally adopts after an inconsistent analysis, some of which I frankly do not understand, is that except for…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Cox v. StolworthyIdaho Supreme Court · 1972
  2. City of Bellevue v. DalyIdaho Supreme Court · 1908
  3. Strong v. BrownIdaho Supreme Court · 1914
  4. Johnson v. Oregon Short Line Railway Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1900
  5. Swanson v. GroatIdaho Supreme Court · 1906

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API