Farrington v. Rutland R. Co.

• Decision Date: 23 September 1899
• Citation: 72 Vt. 24,47 A. 171
• Court: Vermont Supreme Court
• Parties: FARRINGTON v. RUTLAND R. CO.

47 A. 171

72 Vt. 24

FARRINGTON

v. RUTLAND R. CO.

Supreme Court of Vermont. Rutland.

Sept. 23, 1899.

Exceptions from Rutland county court; Thompson, Judge.

Action by Fred H. Farrington against the Rutland Railroad Company to recover damages for the burning of certain of his buildings. There was a judgment for plaintiff, and defendant excepted. Reversed.

Argued before TAFT, C. J., and ROWELL, TYLER, MUNSON, START, and WATSON, JJ.

Joel C. Baker, for plaintiff.

Frederick H. Button, for defendant.

WATSON, J. At the close of the evidence the defendant moved for a verdict, for that there was no evidence to sustain the claim of the plaintiff; for that the defendant had established that it used due care, caution, and diligence, and employed suitable expedients to prevent said fire; and that such facts were not controverted by the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff had introduced no evidence to controvert such showing. The motion was overruled, and the case submitted to the jury, to which defendant excepted. In this was there error?

It was conceded by the defendant that the fire on the occasion in question caught from sparks thrown from the stack of engine No. 207, drawing train No. 22, in the grass in Manchester's meadow, and that it spread to Manchester's barn, and the plaintiff's barn caught from sparks from Manchester's barn. The fact that the fire was caused as conceded was prima facie evidence of negligence on the part of the defendant; and this negligence may have been in the construction of the engine, the condition of it, the placing it in charge of unskillful and imprudent persons, or in the management of the engine in an unskillful and imprudent manner. And, to relieve itself of responsibility in damages for the property injured thereby, the burden was then upon the defendant to show that due caution and diligence were used and suitable expedients employed to prevent such injury. Section 3926, V. S.; Cleaveland v. Railway Co., 42 Vt. 449.

With the plaintiff's case thus made out, the defendant introduced evidence tending to show that the engine was properly constructed, in suitable condition, and in charge of experienced persons; and its evidence tended to show that the engine was drawing a freight train of a certain number of cars, and what was done in the management of the engine. Evidence was also introduced by the defendant tending to show, somewhat in detail, the facts and circumstances relative to the sparks escaping and falling into the dry grass in Manchester's meadow, and setting the same on fire, etc. This was all matter of defense, but whether, in the light of all the evidence in the case, the defendant, exercised due caution and diligence, and employed suitable expedients, to prevent the injury to the plaintiff's property, was a question for the jury to determine, and the motion for a verdict was properly overruled. Gleeson v. Railway Co., 140 U. S. 435, 11 Sup. Ct. 859, 35 L. Ed. 458; Houston v. Brush, 66 Vt. 331, 29 Atl. 380; Latremouille v. Railway Co., 63 Vt. 336, 22 Atl. 656; Bryant v. Railroad Co., 56 Vt. 710; Vinton v. Schwab, 32 Vt. 612.

The defendant excepted to the...