has not, some jurisdictions have taken a similar approach with regulations addressing stray voltage, providing for remediation but establishing limitations on actions for civil damages. See, e.g., Idaho Code Ann. § 61-807 (Supp.2008) (requiring dairy producers to allow utility opportunity to address stray voltage before filing action for damages). A court, however, will not conclude that the legislature has eliminated common-law remedies unless it does so unmistakably. See Urban v. Am. Legion Dep’t of Minn., 723 N.W.2d 1, 10 (Minn.2006) (stating that “we presume that the legislature does not abrogate the common law unless it does so expressly or by necessary implication”); see also Minn. Equal Access Network Servs. v. Burlington N. & Santa Fe R.R., 646 N.W.2d 911, 914 (Minn.App.2002) (<HOLDING>), review denied (Minn. Oct. 15, 2002). The
holding that specific remedy offered under statute regulating excavators did not replace commonlaw remedies holding plaintiffs were not foreclosed from pursuing ucc remedies outside of written warranty because warranty notice provision did not specify that the remedies provided were exclusive of any other remedy holding that specific statutes create exceptions to general statutes therefore if a provision of a specific statute is inconsistent with one in a general statute on the same subject the specific statute controls recognizing the principle that gives precedence to the terms of the more specific statute where a general statute and a specific statute speak to the same concern holding that the remedies are exclusive