Beckdolt v. Grand Rapids & I.R. Co.

• Decision Date: 17 February 1888
• Citation: 113 Ind. 343,15 N.E. 686
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court
• Parties: Beckdolt v. Grand Rapids & I. R. Co.

113 Ind. 343

15 N.E. 686

Beckdolt

v.Grand Rapids & I. R. Co.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

February 17, 1888.

Appeal from circuit court, Jay county; J. M. Haynes, Judge.W. H. Williamson, W. C. Ladd, and D. T. Taylor, for appellant. J. P. O'Rourke, for appellee.

Niblack, J.

This was an action for damages brought by John W. Beckdolt against the Grand Rapids & Indiana Railroad Company, for running over and killing two horses of the alleged aggregate value of $300. 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 employes, 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's 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 80 to 100 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 defense. 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 $250, 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 80 to 100 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 525 feet, and extending north across said highway to a point about 495 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 employes in the use of such side track and of...