Bechdolt v. Grand Rapids And Indiana Railroad Company
| Decision Date | 17 February 1888 |
| Docket Number | 13,041 |
| Citation | 15 N.E. 686,113 Ind. 343 |
| Parties | Bechdolt v. The Grand Rapids and Indiana Railroad Company |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
From the Jay Circuit Court.
The judgment is affirmed, with costs.
D. T Taylor, W. H. Williamson and W. C. Ladd, for appellant.
A. A Chapin and W. S. O'Rourke, for appellee.
This was an action for damages brought by John W. Bechdolt against the Grand Rapids and Indiana Railroad Company for running over and killing two horses of the alleged aggregate value of three hundred dollars.
The complaint was in three paragraphs. The first charged that the point at which the horses entered upon the railroad track was not securely fenced.
The second repeated the charge that, at the point in question, the railroad was not securely fenced, but was negligently left open and uninclosed; that near the place at which the horses entered upon the track, two strips of fence, one on each side of the road, had been so negligently and improperly erected as to constitute a wedge-shaped chute or cul de sac, into which the horses were forced by the defendant's cars and negligently run over and killed, without any fault of the plaintiff.
The third alleged that the defendant did, through the fault, misconduct and negligence of its servants and employees, and without any fault on the part of the plaintiff, run against and over the horses at a point on the railroad known as Collett Station, and did thereby kill and destroy them, and that, also, at the time said horses were killed, the defendant then and there neglected to sound the whistle attached to its locomotive, at a distance of from eighty to one hundred rods from a public crossing and station at which said horses were killed; that the killing of the horses was occasioned by such neglect to sound the whistle of the defendant's locomotive.
The defendant answered in two paragraphs, the first in denial and the second averring affirmative matters in defence. A demurrer to the second paragraph being first overruled, issue was joined upon it and the cause was sent to a jury for trial. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, assessing his damages at two hundred and fifty dollars, accompanied with numerous interrogatories submitted to them at the request of the parties, respectively.
Construing the interrogatories submitted to them at the request of the plaintiff in connection with their answers, the jury answered substantially as follows:
First. That the horses first entered on the railroad grounds at a point where the road was not fenced, but at which it could have been fenced, and from there wandered to a place where the road could not be fenced, and were there killed.
Second. That the plaintiff did not contribute any negligence to the killing of the horses.
Third. That the defendant's engineer did not, at a point from eighty to one hundred rods north of the public highway crossing, where the horses were killed, sound the whistle on his engine three times distinctly.
Construing in like manner the interrogatories submitted to them at the defendant's request in connection with the answers returned to them respectively, the jury answered to the effect following:
First. That the horses entered the defendant's right of way, connected with its railroad track, from a public highway which crosses the track at Collett Station.
Second. That there was no fence at the place at which the horses entered the railroad grounds.
Third. That the defendant did not use the right of way where the horses entered upon it, and south of the highway, for station purposes.
Fourth. That the placing of a fence and cattle-guards on the south side of the public highway between that and the railroad grounds south of and adjoining such highway, would have obstructed the free passage of passengers over said railroad grounds where such passengers were received upon and discharged from the defendant's trains.
Fifth. That there was a side-track at Collett Station commencing on the east side of the main track, south of the public highway, about five hundred and twenty-five feet, and extending north across said highway to a point about four hundred and ninety-five feet north of the same.
Sixth. That at and prior to the time at which the horses were struck and killed, the defendant used the railroad track both north and south of the highway in receiving freight.
Seventh. That the placing of cattle-guards on either side of the highway where the side-track crosses it, would have obstructed the free passage of the defendant's employees in the use of such side-track and of the station grounds, and have endangered their lives and limbs.
Eighth. That the cattle-guards and fence across the railroad track were at Collett Station, 225 feet south of the highway.
Ninth. That the cattle-guards and fence across the railroad north of the highway were 330 feet from the station last named.
Tenth. That the horses strayed from the plaintiff's inclosure onto the highway, and then entered upon the railroad track from the highway.
Eleventh. That the plaintiff's field from which the horses strayed was at the time inclosed by a sufficient fence.
Twelfth. That the horses got out of the plaintiff's field through an inclosure.
Thirteenth and fourteenth. That the plaintiff knew that one of his horses had two nights before got out of the field over the fence.
Fifteenth. That there was no order of the board of commissioners of Jay county permitting horses to run at large.
Sixteenth. That the engineer in charge of the locomotive which struck and killed the horses, sounded the whistle of his engine once when he reached the signal-board north of, and as he approached, the highway at the railroad station.
Seventeenth. That the engineer also caused the bell of his engine to be rung from the time the whistle was sounded until his engine reached the highway crossing.
Eighteenth. That as soon as the engineer observed the horses he sounded the whistle to frighten them from the track.
Nineteenth twentieth and twenty-first. That the supervisor of the road was guilty of negligence in failing to cause the railroad...
To continue reading
Request your trial