Coe v. Northern Pacific Railway Company
| Decision Date | 19 April 1907 |
| Docket Number | 15,184 - (46) |
| Parties | M.E. COE v. NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for Morrison county to recover $50 for the killing of plaintiff's cattle. The case was tried before Baxter, J., and a jury, which rendered a verdict in favor of plaintiff for the sum demanded. From an order denying a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial, Dibell, J., defendant appealed. Affirmed.
Railroad Fence.
The liability of a railroad company for failure to maintain its right-of-way fence in good repair is measured by the rules of ordinary care and prudence.
Railroad Fence.
The obligation to construct the fence as required by statute is absolute; but, when once constructed in compliance with law the company is only bound to the exercise of reasonable care in maintaining it.
Evidence.
Evidence held to support the verdict.
L. T Chamberlain and C. A. Hart, for appellant.
Elmer A. Kling, for respondent.
Action to recover the value of two cows, alleged to have been killed by one of defendant's trains as a result of its negligence in failing to maintain a good and sufficient right-of-way fence, by reason of which the cows strayed upon the right of way. Plaintiff had a verdict in the court below, and defendant appealed from an order denying its alternative motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial.
The only assignment of error requiring special mention is that which challenges the correctness of the charge to the jury on the subject of defendant's duty to maintain in good repair its right-of-way fence. It is urged that the court charged the jury, in effect, that the obligation of maintenance was an absolute one, a failure to perform which rendered defendant liable, without regard to whether it exercised reasonable care in the matter of inspection and repair or not. If this were the proper construction to be given the charge, it incorrectly stated the law to the jury.
The statute requiring railroads to fence their rights of way creates an absolute duty to comply therewith so far as concerns the construction of the fence. Nickolson v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co., 80 Minn. 508, 83 N.W. 454; Ellington v. Great Northern Ry. Co., 96 Minn. 176, 104 N.W. 827. But the unconditional obligation thus imposed does not extend to the repair of the fence when once constructed as required by law. The company in this respect is held only to the rule of ordinary care and prudence. It is bound to maintain the fence in good repair, but its liability for want of repair is governed by the ordinary rules of negligence. Varco v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 30 Minn. 18, 13 N.W. 921.
This particular feature of the law was...
To continue reading
Request your trial