Hart v. Meredith

• Decision Date: 04 April 1990
• Docket Number: No. 3-89-0323,3-89-0323
• Citation: 196 Ill.App.3d 367,143 Ill.Dec. 75,553 N.E.2d 782
• Parties: , 143 Ill.Dec. 75 William Dwight HART d/b/a Double HH Farms, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Steven MEREDITH, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

Page 782

553 N.E.2d 782

196 Ill.App.3d 367, 143 Ill.Dec. 75

William Dwight HART d/b/a Double HH Farms, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Steven MEREDITH, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 3-89-0323.

Appellate Court of Illinois,

Third District.

April 4, 1990.

A. Anthony Ashenhurst (argued), Flack, Kwacala, Murphy & Ashenhurst, Macomb, for Steven Meredith.

John D. McMillan (argued), March, McMillan & Stone, P.C., Macomb, for William Dwight Hart.

Justice WOMBACHER delivered the opinion of the court:

This action was brought to recover damages occasioned by the defendant's bull jumping a division fence. Summary judgment was granted in favor of the plaintiff on the issue of liability. The defendant appeals. We affirm.

The defendant and the plaintiff are occupiers of adjoining farm properties which are used by each party for pasture grazing cattle. In September or October, 1986, the defendant constructed a division line fence between the two properties. The plaintiff was responsible for maintaining the west half of the fence, while the defendant was responsible for maintaining the east half of the fence.

On or about June 20, 1987, a bull owned by the defendant jumped over the east part of the division line fence. The bull "mashed" down part of the fence as it jumped over the fence. The bull then bred two of the plaintiff's purebread Angus cows, causing the plaintiff to lose the services of the cows in the plaintiff's embryo transplant breeding operation.

The plaintiff brought suit against the defendant, alleging that section 20 of the Illinois Fence Law (Ill.Rev.Stat. (1987), ch. 54, par. 1 et seq.) imposes strict liability upon a landowner when his animal jumps his portion of a lawful division fence and causes damage to the animals of an adjoining landowner. The defendant countered that the Illinois Fence Law and the Illinois Domestic Animals Running at Large Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1987, ch. 8, par. 1 et seq.) should be construed in pari materia so as to hold the animal owner liable only if his portion of the division fence was not good or sufficient, or, in other words, was not a reasonable restraint.

The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff on the issue of liability. The court found that the Animal Act does not require the plaintiff to show negligence on the part of the defendant under section 20 of the Fence Law and does not relieve the defendant of the statutory liability imposed by section 20 of the Fence Law. The trial court made a finding pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 308 (Ill.Rev.Stat.1987, ch. 110A, par. 308) and the defendant appeals.

The sole issue on appeal is whether the Illinois Fence Law imposes strict liability upon a landowner when his animal jumps his portion of a lawful division fence causing damage to the animals of the adjoining landowner.

The Illinois Fence Law section 20 (Ill.Rev.Stat. (1987), ch. 54, par. 20) states:

"If any ... neat cattle ... or other domestic animals, shall break into any person's inclosure, the fence being good and sufficient, the owner of such animal ... shall be liable in a civil action, to make good all damages to the owner ... of the inclosure."

In the instant case, it is undisputed that the fence was "good and sufficient". The defendant, however, seeks to avoid the result mandated by the Illinois Fence Law. The defendant first contends that the bull did not "break" into the enclosure, and therefore, on its face, the Fence Law does not apply to the instant case. The defendant apparently believes that for an animal to break into an enclosure, the animal must go through, rather than over, a fence. Because the bull didn't go through the enclosure, the defendant argues the Fence Law doesn't apply to this situation. Instead, the Illinois Domestic Animals Running at Large Act applies. This act imposes a negligence standard, as differentiated from the Fence Law's absolute liability language.

The defendant, however, overlooks the fact that the word "break" has many definitions. Webster's Third International Dictionary (1976) defines "break" a...