Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 607.044 (2026)

Civil liability for livestock at large in livestock district

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

607.044 Civil liability for livestock at large in livestock district. A person shall be liable to the owner or lawful possessor of land if the person permits an animal of a class of livestock to run at large upon such land and the land is located in a livestock district in which it is unlawful for such class of livestock to be permitted to run at large. [1957 c.604 §15]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 10 cases, 1963–2014 · leading case: Dunlap v. Dickson, 765 P.2d 203 (Or. 1988).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Dunlap v. Dickson, 765 P.2d 203 (Or. 1988). · cites it 18× “In his second amended complaint, plaintiff alleged that defendant “was negligent in permitting said cow to run at large on said highway in an area which is designated a closed livestock district.”

Schwerdt v. Myers, 683 P.2d 547 (Or. 1984). · cites it 12× “The resolution of this case involves three statutes (ORS 607.044, 607.045, and 607.992) and consideration of our opinion in Watzig v.”

Doyle v. City of Medford, 337 P.3d 797 (Or. 2014). · cites it 2× “, ORS 607.044 (“A person shall be liable to the owner or law- ful possessor of land if the person permits an animal of a class of livestock to run at large upon such land and the land is located in a livestock district in which it is unlawful for such class of livestock to be…”

Klinger v. Morrow Cnty. Grain Growers, Inc., 794 P.2d 811 (Or. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 2× “The court then noted: “Our conclusion does not conflict with our determination that plaintiff may not recover for statutory liability based upon ORS 607.044 or 607.045(1). * * * [T]he legislature must be assumed to know and to anticipate that a statute may affect private rights…”

Schwerdt v. Myers, 669 P.2d 1147 (Or. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 6× “Such violation is shown only by proof of conduct considered to be criminally negligent * * Plaintiff argues that a showing of ordinary negligence by defendants is sufficient to establish liability under ORS 607.044 and 607.045. 1 ORS 607.045(1) provides: “No person owning or…”

Parker v. Reter, 383 P.2d 93 (Or. 1963). “It is possible to argue that since ORS 607.044 deals with civil liability for damage done by livestock running at large and mentions only the liability to the “owner or lawful possessor of land” the legislature intended to exclude civil liability to others including motorists.”

Dunlap v. Dickson, 754 P.2d 27 (Or. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 14× “However, ORS 607.044 governs here, and the standard under that statute is simple negligence.”

Doyle v. City of Medford (Or. 2014). “, ORS 607.044 (“A person shall be liable to the owner or law- ful possessor of land if the person permits an animal of a class of livestock to run at large upon such land and the land is located in a livestock district in which it is unlawful for such class of livestock to be…”

Haneberg v. Myers, 951 P.2d 146 (Or. 1997). “” See also ORS 607.044 (“A person shall be liable to the owner or lawful possessor of land if the person permits an animal of a class of livestock to run at large upon such land and the land is located in a livestock district in which it is unlawful for such class of livestock…”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.