Cox v. Minneapolis, Sault Ste. Marie & Atlantic Railway Company
| Decision Date | 24 June 1889 |
| Citation | 42 N.W. 924,41 Minn. 101 |
| Parties | John Cox v. Minneapolis, Sault Ste. Marie & Atlantic Railway Company |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for Hennepin county, Hicks, J., presiding, refusing a new trial after verdict of $ 155 for plaintiff.
Order affirmed.
J. D Springer, H. S. Abbott, and F. D. Larrabee, for appellant.
C. F Baxter, for respondent.
The plaintiff's horse ran away and entered upon the unfenced right of way and track of defendant in the suburbs of the city of Minneapolis, and was killed. This action is brought to recover its value, with harness alleged also to have been destroyed by the colliding engine. The argument of the defendant proceeds upon the assumption that the horse entered upon the track at a wagoncrossing, open and used for travel distant 65 feet north from the "head-block" and last switch in that direction, connecting a side track leading to a round-house with the main track, which runs to and connects with a system of tracks upon terminal grounds occupied by defendant's shops, etc., both the round-house and shops being several hundred feet distant from the switch. As there is evidence tending to show that the horse turned up the main track on that crossing, and the jury may have so found, some of the legal propositions submitted must be considered in reference to such a state of facts.
1. It was the duty of the defendant to protect its track by a fence or by cattle-guards at that point, unless the situation was such as to bring the case within the implied exception to the statutory provisions requiring such precautions. That is to say, if it was necessary that the grounds of the company there, including this crossing, should have been kept open in order to enable the company properly to discharge its duties to the public, and accommodate the public convenience or necessity, then, within the settled rule of this court, the defendant would not be liable for a failure to fence. Greeley v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., 33 Minn. 136, (22 N.W. 179;) Hooper v. Chicago, St. Paul, M. & O. Ry. Co., 37 Minn. 52, (33 N.W. 314,) and other cases. But the construction under which this exception is implied in the practical application of the statutory rule is not to be extended to cases where the reason for it is wanting, or beyond the reasonable limits of the company's depot or other public grounds which necessarily fall within the exemption.
2. In this case it appears that the defendant's line of road running north from the switch, traverses an open area, with no intersecting highway or travelled crossing for a long...
To continue reading
Request your trial