Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

131 Ariz. 307

Parrish v. Goff

Court of Appeals of Arizona

Decided December 21, 1981

Court of Appeals of Arizona · decided 1981-12-21

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently December 1990

4 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“Appellees had no duty to motorists to keep cattle off the highway and are absolved from liability by virtue of A.R.S. § 24-502.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Carrow Co. v. Lusby

Relies on 22 Ariz. App. 27 - Jensen v. Maricopa County · Stuart v. Castro

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1981-12-21

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1OPINION

HOWARD, Judge.

¶2This is an appeal from a summary judgment. In the late afternoon of June 21, 1980, appellant Leslie D. Parrish was riding his motorcycle southward on U. S. Highway 89 in Pinal County, Arizona. His wife, Erma, was riding as a passenger on the motorcycle. A cow belonging to appellees suddenly crossed the highway in front of the motorcycle. The motorcycle hit the cow and Erma was killed.

¶3Appellees are the trustees and managers of Goff Cattle Ranch. The ranch covers nearly 14,000 acres and at the time of the accident appellees had approximately 150 head of grazing cattle. The area in which the accident took place is open range and not included in a “no-fence district”.

¶4Appellant contends the trial court erred because the existence of an open range did not absolve appellees of negligence in allowing their cattle to go out on the highway and that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur presented a question of fact for the trier of fact. We do not agree.

¶5Appellees had no duty to motorists to keep cattle off the highway and are absolved from liability by virtue of A.R.S. § 24-502. Stuart v. Castro, 76 Ariz. 147, 261 P.2d 371 (1953); Jensen v. Maricopa County, 22 Ariz.App. 27, 522 P.2d 1096 (1974).

¶6Affirmed.

/131/ariz/307 · .json · Public domain