Heron v. St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway Company
| Decision Date | 16 June 1897 |
| Docket Number | 10,518--(166) |
| Parties | JOHN B. HERON v. ST. PAUL, MINNEAPOLIS & MANITOBA RAILWAY COMPANY and Others |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
This action against the Eastern Railway Company, the St. Paul Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway Company and the Great Northern Railway Company, was brought to recover for damages sustained by plaintiff resulting from fires started by the negligent operation of its trains by the first named company. From orders of the district court for Mille Lacs county, Baxter J., overruling separate demurrers of the Manitoba and Great Northern Companies, they appealed. Affirmed as to the latter defendant, and reversed as to the former.
Wm. R Begg, for appellants.
The allegations in the complaint that it was and is the duty of the Manitoba and Great Northern Companies to keep the right of way free from combustible materials and to see that locomotives passing over the road were properly equipped kept in repair and skillfully operated, are merely conclusions of law and are not admitted by demurrer. Ritchie v. McMullen, 159 U.S. 235; Lumley v. Wabash, 71 F. 21; Clark v. Hart, 98 Ky. 31; Fish v. Farwell, 160 Ill. 236; England v. Russell, 71 F. 818. There is no allegation in the complaint that the alleged negligence of the Manitoba and Great Northern Companies in failing to keep the right of way free from combustible material caused or contributed to cause the damage complained of, and no matter how gross that negligence may have been, unless it caused wholly or in part the injury or damage complained of, it is not actionable. Bennett v. Missouri, 11 Tex. Civ. App. 423; Sheridan v. Bigelow, 93 Wis. 426. The alleged negligence of these companies in permitting grass and leaves to accumulate on the right of way is not the proximate cause of the injury and damage complained of. The negligent management and defective condition of the locomotive operated by the Eastern Company is the immediate and proximate cause. This independent act of negligence committed by a third party intervening between the negligence of appellants and the injury occasioned is the cause to which the damage must be attributed. St. Joseph v. Hedge, 44 Neb. 448; Milwaukee v. Kellogg, 94 U.S. 469; Merchants v. Wood, 64 Miss. 661; Texas v. Woods, 8 Tex. Civ. App. 462; Grimmer v. Pennsylvania, 175 Pa. 1; Morier v. St. Paul, 31 Minn. 351. The Manitoba Company, having parted with possession and control of the railroad and right of way, is in no wise liable for the condition of the right of way or other appurtenances and appliances. Ahern v. Steele, 115 N.Y. 203. The lease by the Manitoba Company to the Great Northern Company and the license or agreement between the Great Northern Company and the Eastern Company were authorized by statute. G. S. 1894, §§ 2714 and 2721. This being so, the Manitoba Company is not liable for the torts of the Great Northern or the Eastern Company and the Great Northern Company is not liable for the torts of its licensee, the Eastern Company. Arrowsmith v. Nashville, 57 F. 165; 3 Wood, Ry. Law, § 490; Nugent v. Boston, 80 Me. 62; St. Louis v. Curl, 28 Kan. 622; Fort v. Fortney, 51 Kan. 287; Ditchett v. Spuyten, 67 N.Y. 425; Miller v. New York, 125 N.Y. 118; Ahern v. Steele, supra; and see, also, Hukill v. Maysville, 72 F. 745; Harper v. Newport, 90 Ky. 359; East v. Culberson, 72 Tex. 375; Hanna v. Chattanooga, 88 Tenn. 310; City v. Mores, 80 Md. 348; Georgia v. Friddell, 79 Ga. 489; Virginia v. Washington, 86 Va. 629.
J. L. Brady and S. L. Pattee, for respondent.
It is the duty of a railway company to keep its right of way reasonably free from combustible matter and whether the allegations in the complaint to that effect are statements of fact or conclusions of law is immaterial. Salmon v. Delaware, 38 N. J. L. 5; Watt v. Nevada, 23 Nev. 154; Eddy v. Lafayette, 163 U.S. 456; Clarke v. Chicago, 33 Minn. 359; 8 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 14. The complaint sufficiently alleges that the damage complained of was caused by the negligence of the appealing defendants in failing to keep the right of way free from combustible matter. Louisville v. Hanmann, 87 Ind. 422; Louisville v. Krinning, 87 Ind. 351; Pittsburgh v. Jones, 86 Ind. 496; Ohio v. McCartney, 121 Ind. 385; Chicago v. Burger, 124 Ind. 275. See, also, Eddy v. Lafayette, supra; Solum v. Great, 63 Minn. 233. The alleged negligence of appellants in permitting grass and leaves to accumulate upon the right of way is the proximate cause of the injury and damage complained of. Undoubtedly the negligence of the Eastern Company is the original and primary cause, but the negligence of the other defendants is equally proximate. It is not necessary that the injury should be the inevitable or necessary consequence of the wrongful act or omission, but only that it should be the natural or probable result. Miller v. St. Louis, 90 Mo. 389. A railway company may be liable upon proof of negligence in not keeping its right of way clear of combustible matter, regardless of the condition or operation of its locomotives. Clarke v. Chicago, 33 Minn. 359; Bowen v. St. Paul, 36 Minn. 522; Smith v. London, L. R. 6 C. P. 14; Eddy v. Lafayette, supra; Jones v. Michigan, 59 Mich. 437; Gram v. Northern, 1 N.D. 252; Haugen v. Chicago, 3 S.D. 394; Toledo v. Endres, 57 Ill.App. 69; Kellogg v. Chicago, 26 Wis. 223; Kelsey v. Chicago, 1 S.D. 80; Louisville v. Miller, 109 Ala. 500; Hycock v. Raleigh, 89 N.C. 321. Notwithstanding the lease by the Manitoba Company to the Great Northern and the operation by the latter pursuant to such lease, the Manitoba Company remains liable for the negligence of its lessee in permitting combustible matter to accumulate upon the right of way and also for the negligence of the Eastern Company as to the running of its engine and the manner of running it, even if such lease was authorized by statute, there being no statutory exemption from such liability, and for the same reason the Great Northern Company is liable for the negligence of the Eastern Company as to the condition and operation of its engine, citing Freeman v. Minneapolis, 28 Minn. 443; Singleton v. Southwestern, 70 Ga. 464; Harmon v. Columbia, 28 S.C. 401; Driscoll v. Norwich, 65 Conn. 230; Logan v. North, 116 N.C. 940; Balsley v. St. Louis, 119 Ill. 68; Green v. Coast, 97 Ga. 15; Pennsylvania v. Ellett, 132 Ill. 654; Cholette v. Omaha, 26 Neb. 159; Nelson v. Vermont, 26 Vt. 717; Independent v. Western, 6 Inter. C. Com. 378; Bouknight v. Charlotte, 41 S.C. 415; Braslin v. Somerville, 145 Mass. 64; Railroad v. Brown, 17 Wall. 445; Central v. Morris, 68 Tex. 49; Tillett v. Norfolk, 118 N.C. 1031; Hycock v. Raleigh, supra; Ingersoll v. Stockbridge, 8 Allen, 438; Railroad v. Barron, 5 Wall. 90; Macon v. Mayes, 49 Ga. 355; McCoy v. Kansas, 36 Mo.App. 445; Chicago v. Meech, 59 Ill.App. 69, 163 Ill. 305; Pittsburg v. Campbell, 86 Ill. 443; Galveston v. Burnett, 37 S.W. 779; Central v. Phinazee, 93 Ga. 488. The liability of the appellants for the torts of their lessee or licensee is not limited to the violations of the duties or obligations imposed upon them as common carriers, but extends to violations of all duties or obligations which are owed to the public. Driscoll v. Norwich, 65 Conn. 230; Harmon v. Columbia, 28 S.C. 401; Logan v. North, 116 N.C. 940; Balsley v. St. Louis, 119 Ill. 68; Pittsburgh v. Campbell, supra; Galveston v. Burnett, supra; Naglee v. A. & F., 83 Va. 707; and see particularly Freeman v. Minneapolis, 28 Minn. 443.
The material allegations of the complaint are as follows:
The St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway Company owned a line of railway between St. Paul and the village of Hinckley. The Eastern Railway Company owned and operated a line of railway between Hinckley and West Superior. The first-named company had leased its road to the Great Northern Railway Company for 999 years. Under this lease the Great Northern Railway Company was operating the road, and had possession of the right of way on which the road was built. The Eastern Railway Company was operating and running its trains over this same road under a license from or an agreement with the Great Northern Railway Company. It was the duty of the St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba and the Great Northern Railway Companies to keep the right of way free from grass, leaves, and other combustible material which might be ignited by sparks or fire from passing engines, and to see that all engines passing over the road were properly constructed, kept in good repair, and carefully handled. The two last-named companies negligently suffered large quantities of grass, leaves, and other combustible material to accumulate on the right of way. The Eastern Railway Company negligently ran and operated over the road owned by the St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway Company and leased by the Great Northern Railway Company, an engine which was defectively constructed, out of repair, and negligently handled, by reason whereof large quantities of sparks and fire were thrown from the engine, which fell upon and ignited the dry grass, leaves, and other combustible material already referred to on the right of way, which fire spread, and ran over upon the adjacent lands, and destroyed the property for which a recovery is sought in this action against all three defendants.
The St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba and Great Northern Railway Companies interposed separate demurrers to the complaint, each upon the ground that it did not state a cause of action. Each company appealed from an order overruling its demurrer.
We construe the allegations of the complaint as meaning that under the lease from the St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway Company the Great Northern Railway Company has and is entitled to the exclusive...
To continue reading
Request your trial