Page images
PDF
EPUB

responsible for the cattle killed or injured by their engines or otherwise upon the unfenced tracks.'

Where a liability for injury to cattle is imposed in general terms, a question is certain to arise, whether, in fact, the remedy is intended to be as broad as the general terms would indicate, or whether, on the other hand, its benefits were not intended exclusively for those whose cattle were lawfully on the adjacent lands; that is to say, the cattle of the owners of such adjacent lands, and such other cattle as might be kept there, or have a right for any reason to be there. In many cases this question has arisen,

and the decisions are not uniform. In some States it [*656] has been held that if cattle stray upon the adjoining lands, and from thence pass upon the track through insufficient fences, and are injured, the owners, being themselves in fault for suffering them to stray, have no remedy whatever." But in other States the conclusion is, that it was intended that

'Failure to fence as required by statute affords a ground of action, if a child thereby gets upon the track and is injured. Keyser v. Chicago, &c., Co., 56 Mich. 559; 33 N. W. Rep. 867. So if fence is required by a city ordinance. Hayes v. Mich. Centr. R. R. Co., 111 U. S. 228. But not if child crosses the track and is injured by falling into a trench on land beyond. Moressey . Prov., &c., R. R. Co., 3 Atl. Rep. 10 (R. I.). Where contributory negli gence as a defense is excluded by the statute, as against "persons injured," an employee of the railroad, injured in the service, after knowing of the lack of a fence may recover. Quackenbush v. Wisconsin &c., Co., 62 Wis. 411. If a railroad is leased, the lessor is liable under such a statute. Nelson 0. Vermont &c., R. R. Co., 26 Vt. 717; Clement . Canfield, 28 Vt. 302. So is the lessee. Ill. Cent. R. R. Co. v. Kanouse, 39 Ill. 272; Toledo, &c., R. R. Co. v. Rumbold, 40 Ill. 143. The contractor is liable under some statutes while building the road. Gardner v. Smith, 7 Mich.

410. See St. Louis, &c., R. R. Co., v. Gerber, 82 Ill. 632. In Indiana, Illinois and Nebraska the injury must be by actual contact of the train with the animal. Louisville, &c., Ry Co. v. Thomas, 106 Ind. 10; Schertz, . Ind., &c.. Ry Co., 107 Ill. 577; Burlington, &c., R. R. Co. e. Shoemaker, 18 Neb. 369. In New York the railroad must produce the injury by mechanical or other agency. Not liable if the animal falls through a bridge, Knight. New York, &c., R. R. Co., 99 N. Y. 25.

2 See Bemis o. Connecticut, &c., R R. Co., 42 Vt. 375; Eames . Salem, &c, R. R. Co., 98 Mass. 560; McDonald . Pittsfield, &c., R. R. Co., 115 Mass. 564. See Berry . St. Louis, &c., R. R. Co., 65 Mo. 172; Peddicord . Miss. &c., Ry Co., 85 Mo. 160. No liability, except for recklessness, for injuring trespassing animals running at large in violation of an ordinance. Vanhorn v. Burlington, &c., Ry Co., 63 Ia. 67; Kansas City, &c., R. R. Co. . McHenry, 24 Kan. 501.

all persons should have the benefit of the statutory protection.' Differences in the phraseology of statutes will account in part for the differences in conclusions, but not entirely.'

'Indianapolis, &c., R. R. Co. v. McKinney, 24 Ind. 283; Isbell v. New York, &c., R R. Co., 27 Conn. 393; McCall v. Chamberlain, 13 Wis. 637; Curry . Chicago &c., R. R. Co., 43 Wis. 665; Corwin v. New York, &c., R. R. Co., 13 N. Y. 42; Bradley v. Buffalo, &c., R. R. Co., 34 N. Y. 427; Shepard v. Buffalo, &c., R. R. Co., 35 N. Y. 641; Tracy v. Troy, &c., R. R. Co., 38 N. Y. 433; Ewing v. Chicago, &c., R. R. Co., 72 Ill. 25; Cairo, &c., R. R. Co. v. Murray, 82 Ill. 76. See Fawcett . York, &c., R. R. Co., 16 Q. B. 610.

These statutes do not impose on railroad companies the obligation to fence their stations and such grounds as would be inconveniently used if fenced, and the question of liability for cattle injured in such places is purely one of negligence. Swearingen. Missouri, &c., R. R. Co., 64 Mo. 73; Smith v. Chicago, &c., R. R. Co., 34 Iowa, 506; Robertson v. Railroad Co., 61 Mo. 412; Toledo, &c., R. R. Co. v. Spangler, 71 Ill. 568. Liable for not fencing land erroneously supposed by it to be in the highway. Coleman . Flint, &c., Co., 31 N. W. Rep. 47 (Mich.). Where they are required to fence, an agreement with the adjoining owner that they need not do so will not relieve them from any obligation to other persons. Gilmano. European, &c., R. Co., 60 Me. 235. And the fact that they exercise the highest care in running their trains will not excuse them. Gorman v. Railroad Co., 26 Mo. 441. See Union Pac. R. R. Co. v. Rollins, 5 Kan. 167.

Following are cases in which the liability of railroad companies for injury to cattle on unfenced or imper

fectly fenced tracts have been considered: Dawson v. Midland R. Co., L. R. 8 Exch. 8; Williams v. Great Western R. Co., L. R. 9 Exch. 157; Wanless v. N. E. R. Co., L. R. 6 Q. B. 481; Stapley v. London, &c., R. Co., L. R. 1 Exch. 20. Hurd v. Rut

land, &c., R. R. Co., 25 Vt. 116; Nelson v. Vt. Cent. R. R. Co., 26 Vt. 717; Thorpe . Rutland, &c., R. R. Co., 27 Vt. 140; Clark v. Vt. & Can. R. R. Co., 28 Vt. 103: Clement v. Canfield, 28 Vt. 302; Holden v. Rutland, &c., R. R. Co., 30 Vt. 297; Bemis v. Can. &c., R. R. Co., 42 Vt. 375; White v. Concord R. R. Co., 30 N. H. 188; Horn v. Atlantic, &c., R. R. Co., 35 N. H. 169; Smith v. Eastern R. R. Co., 35 N. H. 356; Widner v. Maine Cent. R R Co. 65 Me. 332; McCall v. Chamberlain, 13 Wis. 637; Brown v. Milwaukee, &c., R. R. Co., 21 Wis. 39; Blair o. Milwaukee, &c,, R. R. Co., 20 Wis. 254; Schmidt v. Milwaukee, &c,, R. R. Co., 23 Wis. 186; Antisdel v. Chicago, &c., R. R Co., 26 Wis. 145; Laude v. Chicago, &c., R. R. Co., 33 Wis. 640; Bay City, &c., R. R. Co. v. Austin, 21 Mich. 390; Flint, &c., R. R. Co., . Lull., 28 Mich. 510; Grand Rapids, &c., R. R. Co. v. Southwick, 30 Mich. 445; Ill. Cent. R. R. Co. v. Williams, 27 Ill. 48; Chicago, &c., R. R. Co. v. Utley, 38 Ill. 410; Chicago, &c., R. R. Co. v. Cauffman, 38 Ill.421; Ill. Cent. R. R. Co. v. Kanouse, 39 Ill. 272; Toledo, &c., R. R. Co. v. Rumbold, 40 Ill. 143: Toledo, &c., R. Co., v. Arnold, 43 Ill. 418; Peoria &c., R. R. Co. v. Barton, 80 Ill. 72; McCoy v. California, &c., R. R. Co., 40 Cal. 532; Jeffersonville R. R. Co. v. Martin, 10 Ind. 416; Gabbert v. Jeffersonville R. R. Co., 11 Ind. 365;

R.

[*657]

*Other neglects of Statutory Duty. The following are also cases of neglect of statutory duty for which indi viduals injured have been allowed to recover in actions on the case for negligence. Neglect of railway companies to ring bells or sound the whistle on approaching a highway crossing, or to put up a sign to warn travelers;' neglect to guard their cross

Indianapolis, &c., R. R. Co. v. Taffe, 11 Ind. 458; Indianapolis R. R. Co. v. Fisher, 15 Ind. 203; Indianapolis, &c., R. R. Co. v. McKinney, 24 Ind. 283; Ohio, &c., R. R. Co. v. Miller, 46 Ind. 215; Ohio, &c., R. R. Co. v. McClure, 47 Ind. 317; Indianapolis, &c., R. R. Co. v. Lyon, 48 Ind. 119. There are many others. Liable for failure to fence against a "crazy" horse as against any other. Liston v. Centr. Ia. Ry. Co., 70 Ia. 714. See for cases under such statutes, notes to Dunkirk, &c., R. R. Co. v. Mead, 1 A. & E. R. R. Cas. 171; Brentner v. Chicago, &c., Ry Co., 7 Id. 577, and cases and notes passim, 19 Id. 529674. If a fence is out of repair, the company is not responsible for injury resulting therefrom, provided there is no negligence in proceeding to put it in repair. Robinson v. Grand Trunk R. Co. 32 Mich. 322; Toledo, &c., R. R. Co. v. Daniels, 21 Ind. 256; Indianapolis, &c., R. R. Co. v. Truitt, 24 Ind. 162; Pittsburgh, &c., R. R. Co. v. Smith, 26 Ohio (N. 8.) 124; Russell v. Hanley, 20 Iowa, 219; Aylesworth v. Chicago, &c., R. R. Co., 30 Iowa, 459. Compare Ohio, &c., R. R. Co. v. Clutter, 82 Ill. 123. See Crosby . Detroit, &c., Ry Co., 58 Mich. 458; Railway Co. v. Smith, 38 Ohio St. 410, and as to care in keeping gate shut, Wait v. Burlington, &c., Ry Co., 37 N. W. Rep. 159 (Ia.). As to what is a sufficient fence, see Lyons. Merrick, 105 Mass. 71; Chambers. Matthews, 18 N. J. 368. Whether the doctrine of contributory negligence is to be allowed any force

when an injury occurs through the neglect of a statutory requirement, see Caswell v. Worth, 5 El. and Bl 849; Steves v. Oswego, &c., R. R. Co., 18 N. Y. 422; Nashville, &c., R. R. Co. v. Smith, 6 Heisk. 174; Quackenbush v. Wisconsin, &c., R. R. Co., 62 Wis. 411. Not liable for animals getting upon track through a farm gate unless it was left open through company's fault. Lemon . Chicago, &c., Co., 59 Mich. 618. Farmer's duty to keep the gate shut. Louisville, &c., Ry Co. v. Goodbar, 102 Ind. 596. But if the cattle of third persons are injured by coming through his open gate, his negligence is not a defense. Wabash, &c., Ry Co. . Williamson, 104 Ind. 154.

Wilson v. Rochester, &c., R. R. Co., 16 Barb. 167; Ernst v. Hud. Riv. R. R. Co., 35 N. Y. 9; Richardson . N. Y., &c., R. R. Co., 45 N. Y. 846; Renwick v. New York, &c., R.R. Co., 36 N. Y. 132; Chicago, &c., R. R. Co. v. Triplett, 38 Ill. 482; Toledo, &c.,R. R. Co. v. Jones, 76 Ill. 311; Toledo, &c., R. R. Co. v. Durkin, 76 Ill. 595; Indianapolis, &c., R. R. Co. v. Smith, 78 Ill. 112; Dimick . Chicago, &c., R. R. Co., 80 Ill. 338; Langhoff . Milwaukee, &c., R. R. Co., 19 Wis. 489; Horn . Chicago, &c., R. R. Co., 38 Wis. 463; Linfield . Old Colony. &c., R. R. Co., 10 Cush. 562; Kimball v. Western R. R. Co., 6 Gray, 542; Norton. Eastern R. R. Co., 113 Mass. 366; State v. Vermont, &c., R. R. Co., 28 Vt. 583; Wakefield v. Connecticut, &c., R. R. Co., 37 Vt. 350; Dodge . Burlington, &c., R. R Co.,

2

[*658] ings with a gate or with watchmen when required ;' moving trains at unlawful speed; neglecting to fence or otherwise protect dangerous machinery, or the shaft of a mine;' neglecting to keep a bridge in repair;' neglecting to sink telegraph wire in crossing a stream; disregarding a statute which forbids selling naphtha as aburning fluid; neglect of the

84 Iowa, 276; Correll v. Burlington, &c., R. R. Co., 38 Iowa, 120; Augusta, &c., R. R. Co. v. McElmurry, 24 Geo. 75; Nashville, &c., R. R. Co. v. Smith, 6 Heisk. 174; Chicago, &c., R. R. Co. v. Boggs, 101 Ind. 522, and cases; Johnson v. Chicago, &c., Ry Co., 77 Mo. 546. Such a statute in Rhode Island held not to be designed for the benefit of others than those intending to cross on the highway, and therefore one who is injured in walking along the track can have no action because of the omission. O'Donnell v. Providence, &c., R. R. Co., 6 R. I. 211. But, see Hill v. Portland, &c., R. R. Co., 55 Me. 438; Norton v. Eastern R. R. Co., 113 Mass. 366; Wilson v. Rochester, &c., R. R. Co., 16 Barb. 167; Wakefield . Connecticut, &c., R. R. Co., 37 Vt. 330. Failure is actionable if thereby one driving parallel to the track near crossing, though not intending to cross, is injured from fright of horse. Ransom v. Chicago, &c., Ry Co., 62 Wis. 178. Compare, however, East Tenn. &c., Co. v. Feathers, 10 Lea, 103, where the person was some distance from the crossing. Failure to give signals is actionable if cattle are thereby injured. Palmer v. St Paul, &c., R. R. Co., 38 N. W. Rep. 100 (Minn.) It was not presumptively negligent not to sound a signal in approaching a crossing before these statutes were passed. See Galena, &c., R. R. Co. . Dill, 22 Ill. 246; Galena, &c., R. R. Co. v. Loomis, 13 Ill. 548; Ill. Cent. R. R. Co. v. Phelps, 29 Ill. 447.

'Lunt v. London. &c., R. R. Co., L. R. 1 Q. B. 277; Bilbee v. London, &c., R. R. Co., 18 C. B. (N. s.) 583; St. Louis, &c., R. R. Co. v. Dunn, 78 Ill. 197; Johnson v. St. Paul, &c., R. R. Co., 31 Minn. 283. Failure to obey a statute as to obstructing highways with cars gives an action. Patterson v. Detroit, &c., R. R. Co., 56 Mich. 172. See Cumming . Brooklyn, &c., Co., 38 Hun, 362.

2 Houston, &c., R. R. Co. v. Terry, 42 Tex. 451; Aycock v. Wilmington, &c., R. R. Co., 6 Jones, (N. C.) 231; Bowman . Chicago, &c., R. R. Co., 85 Mo. 533; Keim v. Union &c., Co., 90 Mo. 314; Crowley v. Burlington, &c., Ry Co., 65 Ia. 658; Phila., &c., R. R. Co. v. Stebbing, 62 Md. 504; South., &c, R, R. Co. v. Donovan, 4 South. Rep. 142 (Ala.). So where a building was struck and person hurt by car going off track. Mahan v. Union Depot, &c., Co., 34 Ming. 29. But such speed is not conclusive of negligence. Hanlon v. South Boston, &c., Co., 129 Mass. 310.

3 Coe v. Platt, 6 Exch. 752; Holmes v. Clarke, 6 H. & N. 348; Clarke v. Holmes, 7 H. & N. 937; Caswell o. Worth, 5 El. & Bl. 849; Fawcett v. York, &c., R. R. Co., 16 Q. B. 610; Reynolds v. Hindman, 32 Iowa, 146. 4 Bartlett, &c., Co. v. Roach, 68 Ill. 174.

5 Titcomb v. Fitchburg R. R. Co., 12 Allen, 254.

6 Blanchard v. West. Un. Tel. Co., 60 N. Y. 510.

7 Hourigan v. Nowell, 110 Mass. 470; Wellington v. Oil Co., 104 Mass.64.

master of a vessel to take a proper supply of medicines for the benefit of his crew and passengers when going upon a voyage,' and neglect of a toll-bridge company to keep the bridge in repair, as required by its charter.' But without going further into particulars, it is sufficient to say of the authorities that they recognize the rule as a general one, that when the duty imposed by statute is manifestly intended for the protection and benefit of individuals, the common law, when an individual is injured by a breach of the duty, will supply a remedy, if the statute gives none.'

Where a statutory requirement cannot be fully complied with, whatever is possible under the circumstances to prevent injury should be done. Mobile, &c., R. R. Co. v. Malone, 46 Ala. 391, citing Gr. West. R. R. Co. v. Geddis, 33 Ill. 304; Nashville, &c., R. R. Co. v. Comans, 45 Ala. 437.

1 Couch v. Steel, 3 El. & Bl. 402.

Grigsby v. Chappell, 5 Rich. 443. See Orcutt v. Bridge Co., 53 Me. 500, Commissioners v. Duckett, 20 Md.

468. See Caswell . Worth, 5 El & Bl. 849; Holmes v. Clarke, 6 H. & N. 348; S. C. in Ex. Ch., 7 H. & N. 37; Fawcett o. York, &c., R. Co., 16 Q.B. 610; Britton v. Gt. West. Cotton Co. L. R. 7. Exch. 130; Atkinson v. Newcastle, &c., Co., L. R. 6 Exch. 402.

« PreviousContinue »