Johnston v. Director General of Railroads
| Decision Date | 23 March 1920 |
| Citation | 30 Del. 565,109 A. 581 |
| Court | Delaware Superior Court |
| Parties | TILGHMAN JOHNSTON and WALTER BLACKSON, trustees under the last will and testament of William Gonverneur Ramsey, deceased, v. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF RAILROADS |
Superior Court for New Castle County, March Term, 1920.
SUMMONS CASE, No. 18, September Term, 1919.
Action by Tilghman Johnston and Walter Blackson, as trustees under the last will and testament of William G. Ramsey, deceased against the Director General of Railroads. Verdict for plaintiffs.
Evidence was introduced by the plaintiffs to show: That a barn and other adjacent buildings and their contents situated on a farm, in New Castle county, owned by plaintiffs, were completely destroyed by fire on October 9, 1918, shortly after eight o'clock in the evening. That the barn was located at a distance of one hundred and fifty feet from the right of way of a railroad then being operated by defendant. That shortly before eight o'clock a train passed said barn and a few minutes later the barn and adjacent buildings were discovered to be on fire. That for two hours previous no one had been inside the buildings, and the only cause that could be attributed to the fire was the possibility of sparks having been emitted from the locomotive, and communicated to the barn. That locomotives of the defendant company have frequently been seen emitting large numbers of sparks in the immediate neighborhood of the plaintiffs' farm, and that other fires have occurred on said farm and adjacent properties, said fires always being first noticed shortly after the passing of trains. It was also testified that the wind on the night in question was blowing in the direction from the railroad to the barn.
The defense was that the train in question emitted no sparks as it passed plaintiff's property on October 9, 1918, said locomotive having been equipped with the latest improved spark arrester, which was examined on the morning following the fire and found to be in good condition. That the wind on the night of the fire was blowing in the direction from the barn to the right of way of the railroad.
PLAINTIFFS' PRAYERS.
Direct evidence that the fire in question was caused by the defendant's locomotive is not required. It is sufficient if this be proved by circumstantial evidence.
Proof that damage has been caused by fire from a locomotive on a railroad raises a prima facie presumption of negligence on the part of the railroad. In order to exonerate itself from liability, the defendant must show that it was not negligent. For collection of cases supporting this prayer, see Note XI to case of Jacob Doll & Sons v. Ribetti, 5 Neg. Comp. Cases Ann. (1913) 46.
It is the duty of the railroad to use ordinary care in equipping its locomotives with the best mechanical appliances in known and practical use for preventing the escape of fire and sparks. Phillips v. So. Railroad Company, 109 Va 436, 63 S.E. 998 (1909).
Mere proof that the equipment of the engine was in good condition is not sufficient to relieve the defendant of the charge of negligence. The defendant must also prove that its equipment was properly operated.
It is also the duty of the railroad to keep its locomotives in proper condition and repair and under proper management to prevent the emission of sparks and fire. Phillips v. Railroad Co., supra.
"Evidence though uncontradicted, that the apparatus of the locomotive was in good order, and that those in charge were competent and skillful, does not of itself prove that the fire did not originate from the locomotive; to do that the defendant ought to show that the fire could have originated in some other way." Hagan v. Railroad Co., 86 Mich. 615, 49 N.W. 509; 3 Shear. & Red. on Neg. (6th Ed.) § 676.
Even though all needful and proper appliances are used for the retention of sparks, the railroad will nevertheless be liable if sparks escape by overcrowding the engine or if fire escapes through any other want of due care. 3 Shear. & Red. on Neg. (6th Ed.) § 674.
Slossen v. Burlington, etc., Railroad Co. (Iowa) 10 N.W. 860.
Evidence to show that it was improbable that the fire started in any other way may be considered by the jury in determining whether the fire was started by fire from the locomotive.
Evidence of other fires in the neighborhood at other times may also be considered by the jury in determining whether the fire in question was started by the locomotive of the defendant.
Measure of damages.
Evidence showing the throwing of sparks and fire for a considerable distance from the railroad tracks may be considered by the jury as tending to show negligence on the part of the railroad in the operation or construction of its locomotives.
DEFENDANT'S PRAYERS.
To find a verdict for the defendant.
To entitle the plaintiffs to recover in their action it is incumbent on the plaintiffs to establish the fact to the satisfaction of the jury that the defendant set fire to the plaintiffs' barn by sparks emitted from its engine. Jefferis v. P., W. & B. R. R. Co., 3 Houst. 455.
That even if the plaintiffs established the fact the fire was caused by a spark from the defendant's engine, still if they failed to show by satisfactory proof that the firing and destruction of the barn resulted from the carelessness or negligence of the defendant they could not recover in this action.
That the defendant is not answerable under all circumstances or at all events, but is only answerable for their own fault, that is for want of due care, skill or diligence, in the transaction of their business and in the use of their engines in it to prevent such accidents.
That if the defendant on the occasion in question had adopted the usual precautions in supplying its engine with such spark arresters as were in general use for the escape of sparks, and employed a competent engineer to manage its engine and the engineer used reasonable care and diligence in the management of said engine then the defendant did all that either the law, or enlightened reason required of it in such case and the plaintiffs could not recover in this action. Jefferis v. P. W. & B. R. R. Co., supra.
That the defendant had an unquestionable right to operate the railroad by engines propelled by steam generated by fire.
That if the defendant used due care and caution in the running of its engines and yet unfortunately the barn of the plaintiffs was set on fire by sparks emitted from its engine and destroyed, the plaintiffs would not be entitled to recover for the loss sustained by them because the defendant under such circumstances would be without fault. Jefferis v. P., W. & B. R. R. Co., supra.
If the defendant had in use on its locomotive fire appliances and machinery then in general use for the prevention of the escape of sparks and coals of fire and the plaintiffs do not show that it has been negligent in other particulars there would be no liability and the plaintiffs cannot recover in this action. 3 Elliott on R. R. § 1224;...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Johnston v. Dibector Gen. of Railroads
... 109 A. 581 JOHNSTON et al. v. DIBECTOR GENERAL OF RAILROADS. Superior Court of Delaware. New Castle. March 23, 1920. 109 A. 582 Summons Case, No. 18, September Term, 1919. Action by Tilghman Johnston and Walter Blackson, as trustees under the last will and testament of William G. Ramsey, d......