Chi., B. & Q. R. Co. v. Williams

• Citation: 61 Neb. 608,85 N.W. 832
• Court: Supreme Court of Nebraska
• Decision Date: 10 April 1901
• Parties: CHICAGO, B. & Q. R. CO. v. WILLIAMS ET AL.

61 Neb. 608

85 N.W. 832

CHICAGO, B. & Q. R. CO.

v.WILLIAMS ET AL.

Supreme Court of Nebraska.

April 10, 1901.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. A railroad company acts in the capacity of a common carrier of live stock which it receives for transportation; and, as such carrier, it is bound to provide cars fit and suitable under existing conditions, and exercise due care to carry safely.

2. Where the shipper of live stock does not agree to furnish a care taker, and some of the animals die or are injured for want of proper care and protection while in transit, the carrier is liable, and must bear the loss.

3. Where a shipper of live stock agrees to furnish a care taker, and fails to do so, the carrier, if it has knowledge of such failure and proceeds under the shipping contract, is liable for any loss resulting from its failure to provide the stock with proper care and protection.

4. Where the defendant denies the commission of a wrongful act with which he is charged, and pleads nothing by way of justification, evidence of justification responds to no issue, and is immaterial.

5. Evidence examined, and found to support the verdict.

Error to district court, Seward county; Bates, Judge.

Action by William S. Williams and others against the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.J. W. Deweese, R. S. Norval, and F. E. Bishop, for plaintiff in error.

D. C. McKillip, for defendants in error.

SULLIVAN, J.

This action was brought by William S. Williams and others against the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company to recover the value of a saddlebred stallion which it is claimed became sick and died in consequence of long exposure and want of care while being transported over defendant's line of road from Kansas City, Mo., to Seward, in this state. The jury found a verdict against the company, and judgment was rendered thereon. It appears from the record that the horse was shipped from Gainesville, Tex.; that he was safely transported by the initial carrier, the Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fé Railway Company, to Kansas City, and there tendered to the defendant, a connecting carrier, on or about May 2, 1892; that the defendant company at first declined to receive the animal, because there was no one in charge of him, either as a care taker, or with authority to contract for his transportation; that there were afterwards some negotiations with Williamsat Seward, which eventuated in the defendant receding from its position and receiving the horse for shipment; that the animal was thereupon put into an ordinary stock car, hitched in such wise that he could not lie down, and sent upon his journey; that he received neither feed nor water from the time he was loaded at Kansas City until he reached Seward. How long that was, does not clearly appear, but the inference is justifiable that it was between 24 and 48 hours. At this time the weather was chilly. Rain was falling, and the floor of the car was covered with slush. When he arrived at his destination the horse was in the first stage of pneumonia, from which disease he afterwards died. These and other facts submitted to the jury tended strongly to convict the defendant of negligence in the transportation of plaintiffs' property. The evidence, in our judgment, was quite sufficient to authorize and support the verdict rendered. The company undertook, for a consideration, to transport the stallion from Kansas City to Seward. It was a common carrier of freight, and as such was bound to provide a car fit and suitable under existing conditions, and to exercise due care to carry the animal safely. Black v. Railway Co., 30 Neb. 197, 46 N. W. 428;Moulton v. Railroad Co., 31 Minn. 85, 16 N. W. 497;Railway Co. v. Dorman, 72 Ill. 504;Evans v. Railroad Co., 111 Mass. 142; Hutch. Carr. § 218 et seq. There are, of course, exceptions to the general rule of liability for...