Eaton v. Mississippi River & Bonne Terre Railway Company
Citation | 209 S.W. 974,201 Mo.App. 194 |
Parties | LOUIS EATON, Respondent, v. MISSISSIPPI RIVER & BONNE TERRE RAILWAY COMPANY, Appellant |
Decision Date | 04 March 1919 |
Court | Court of Appeal of Missouri (US) |
Submitted on Briefs February 4, 1919.
Appeal from the Circuit Court of St. Francois County.--Hon. Peter H Huck, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
Judgment affirmed.
Edward A. Rozier for appellant.
(1) The injury complained of did not give a cause of action under the statutes of Missouri, imposing liability upon railroads for failure to fence; for the animal was not struck by a moving train, nor was it frightened. Hughes v. Railway, 66 Mo. 325; Foster v. Railroad, 90 Mo. 116; Lafferty v. Railroad, 44 Mo. 290; Hesse v Railroad, 36 Mo.App. 163; Lindsay v. Railroad, 36 Mo.App. 51; Gilbert v. Railway, 23 Mo.App. 65; Seibert v. Railway, 72 Mo. 565; Colbert v Railway, 78 Mo.App. 176. (2) The statutes of Missouri requiring fencing were adopted in the exercise of the police power for the safety of the public from the operation on railroads of its engines and cars. Gorman v. Railway, 26 Mo. 441-447; Perkins v. Railway, 103 Mo. 52-57; Barnett v. Railroad, 68 Mo. 56-62-63; Trice v. Railroad, 49 Mo. 438-440; Spealman v. Railway, 71 Mo. 434. (3) A fair reading of the statute (see 3145, Rev. Stat. 1909) shows the duty to fence is to guard the damages from the operation of the railroad. Gorman v. Railway, 26 Mo. 441-447; Dooley v. Railway, 36 Mo.App. 381-387. (4) The fencing statutes only apply to the operations of a railroad, for the safety of the public, under the police power of the State. Gorman v. Railway, 26 Mo. 441-447; Perkins v. Railway, 103 Mo. 57; Barnett v. Railroad, 68 Mo. 56-62-63; Trice v. Railroad, 49 Mo. 438-440; Spealman v. Railway, 71 Mo. 434. (5) The protection given by sections 3145, 3146 and 5428, Revised Statutes 1909, was to prevent injuries to stock from the operation of engines and cars on the railroad (tracks), but chiefly to guard passengers from injuries that might arise from collision with such stock. Gorman v. Railway, 26 Mo. 441-447; Perkins v. Railway, 103 Mo. 52-57; Rinehart v. Railway, 204 Mo. 269-277; Stanley v. Railway, 84 Mo. 625-630; Hill v. Railway, 49 Mo.App. 520-535; Robinson v. Railroad 57 Mo. 494-496; Riggs v. Railroad Co., 120 Mo.App. 341-353; Brown v. Railroad, 127 Mo.App. 614-618; Hume v. Railroad, 9 Mo.App. 588, Mem.; Lafferty v. Railroad, 44 Mo. 291-294; Jackson v. Railway, 43 Mo.App. 324; Kinion v. Railway, 39 Mo.App. 382-387. (6) Except for damages from operation, a railroad company does not owe a greater duty to grazing stock than any other landowner. Hughes v. Railroad, 66 Mo. 325-327; Gorman v. Railway, 26 Mo. 441-447; Dooley v. Railway 36 Mo.App. 381-387; Foster v. Swope, 41 Mo.App. 137-144; Hill v. Railway, 49 Mo.App. 520-535. (7) The railroad did not have to fence, so as to prevent injury to stock straying into the trestle of its track. Hughes v. Railroads, 66 Mo. 325; Teague v. Clemons, 180 Mo.App. 464; Turner v. Thomas, 71 Mo. 596; Foster v. Swope, 41 Mo.App. 137-144; Colvin v. Sutherland, 31 Mo.App. 77-82; Wilt v. Coughlin, 176 Mo.App. 275-283; Peek v. W. U. Tel. Co., 159 Mo.App. 148-9; Schmidt v. K. C. Dist. Co., 90 Mo. 284-293; Dooley v. Mo. P. Ry., 36 M. App. 386; Hill v. Railroad, 49 Mo.App. 535; Hill v. Railroad 121 Mo. 477. (8) There are three general exceptions to the rule that an owner of land is not an insurer of stock coming thereon. (a) Where the erection is one enticing to children or stock. Barney v. Railroad, 126 Mo. 381; Schmidt v. K. C. Dist Co., 90 Mo. 284-293. (b) Where the erection is near a traveled highway. Teague v. Clemons, 180 Mo.App. 464; Colvin v. Sutherland, 31 Mo.App. 77; Witt v. Coughlin, 176 Mo.App. 283; Peck v. W. U. Tel., 159 Mo.App. 148. (c) Where the erection of fences, a pocket or trap is created. Hill v. Railway, 49 Mo.App. 534-535; Boggs v. Railroad, 18 Mo.App. 274; Dubray v. Railway, 128 S.W. 1092. (9) The case of McCaskey v. Q., O. & K. C. R. R., 174 Mo.App. 724, relied on by plaintiff, is in direct conflict with the decisions of the Supreme Court, unless is comes under subdivision C, article 8, See cases cited under article 6. (10) There is no causal connection between the alleged act of negligence and the injury. Montgomery v. H. & St. J., 90 Mo. 442; Lowery v. Railroad, 40 Mo.App. 554; Rowen v. Railroad, 82 Mo.App. 24-29; Stoneman v. A. & P. Ry., 58 Mo. 503-504.
R. C. Tucker for respondent.
The Statute of Missouri enjoined upon the appellant the duty to erect, keep and maintain lawful fences along the sides of its railroad, where it passes through enclosed and cultivated fields and unenclosed lands. Revised Statutes 1909, section 3145. A failure to perform a statutory duty constitutes negligence, which affords a right to action to anyone injured thereby. McCaskey v. Railway 174 Mo.App. 724; Ashby v. Grand Road, 99 Mo.App. 185; Easley v. Mo. P. Ry. Co. 113 Mo. 236; Henlin v. Mo. P. Ry. Co., 104 Mo. 381 Gratiot v. Mo. P. Ry. Co., 116 Mo. 450. Where a railway fails to maintain the kind of enclosure required by law, and as a consequence of such negligence, an animal strays upon the tract and is injured, the owner may recover damages thus inflicted upon him, though the manner of the injury may be outside the purview of the statutory remedies. McCaskey v. Railroad, 174 Mo.App. 724; Hill v. Mo. P. Ry. Co., 49 Mo.App. 520. It has been settled in this State by a long line of decisions that the statute is cumulative, and does not displace the common law in the situation to which it applies. Hill v. Mo. P. Ry. Co., 49 Mo.App. 526.
Plaintiff commenced this action before a justice of the peace by filing a statement, in which he set out that defendant, a railroad corporation owning and operating a railroad passing through Randolph Township, in St. Francois County, on April 18, 1915, and for a long time prior thereto, negligently and carelessly failed to erect, keep and maintain fences along the sides of its railroad where it passes through uninclosed lands in Randolph Township, and that, on the above date, by reason of defendant's negligence plaintiff's mare strayed in and upon the railroad, became entangled in a trestle on the railroad and was killed, to plaintiff's damage in the sum of $ 150, for which, with costs, he asks judgment.
The cause, appealed from the justice to the circuit court, was tried and submitted on an agreed statement of facts as follows, a jury having been waived:
Taking the cause under advisement the circuit court found for plaintiff and assessed his damages at the sum of $ 150, from which defendant has duly appealed.
It is earnestly insisted by learned counsel for appellant, that inasmuch as it does not appear that the animal was struck by a moving train, nor frightened while on the line, plaintiff cannot recover.
Learned counsel for repondent, however, contends that his action is not a statutory one but is a common law action for injuries sustained by reason of the defendant failing to perform a statutory duty.
Section 3145 of the Statutes of 1909 makes it the duty of railroads operating in this State to erect and maintain "lawful fences on the sides of the road where the same passes through, along or adjoining inclosed or cultivated fields or uninclosed lands, with openings," etc., "sufficient to prevent horses, cattle, mules and all other animals from getting on the railroad," and provides that until such fences, openings and gates are made and maintained, the corporation shall be liable "in double the amount of all damages which shall be done by its agents, engines or cars to horses, cattle, mules or other animals on said road, or by reason of any horses, cattle, mules or other animals escaping from or coming upon said lands, fields or inclosures, occasioned in either case by the failure to construct or maintain such fences or cattle guards."
Section 3146 of the same statute provides that whenever live stock shall go upon any railroad or its right of way, and the railroad is not at such place or places inclosed by a good fence on both sides, such as is required by law, and the stock, by being frightened or run by any passing locomotive or train on the railroad, shall be injured or killed by or because of having run against the fence on either side, or into any culvert, etc., the company shall pay the owner the damages sustained. This last section has no application here, but we quote it as it is referred to in several cases hereafter cited, where the question of frightening and killing or injuring stock has arisen.
In a multitude of cases decided by our Supreme Court and the Appellate Courts, it has been held that to recover the penalty given by this statute, the injury must be one which...
To continue reading
Request your trial