Jones v. Bond

• Decision Date: 25 September 1889
• Parties: JONES v. BOND.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Mississippi

40 F. 281

JONES v. BOND.

United States Circuit Court, S.D. Mississippi, Eastern Division.

September 25, 1889

Harry Peyton, for plaintiff.

W. L Nugent, for defendant.

Hill J.

This cause was submitted to the court, upon the questions of fact as well as law, upon petition, answer, and proofs. The petition, in substance, alleges that petitioner was the owner of a very valuable bitch, of the setter tribe, from which he semi-annually obtained a large number of puppies, that he sold for a large sum; that said bitch was of the value of $150; that on the 19th day of January, 1889, she was on the track of the Vicksburg & Meridian Railroad, then being operated by the defendant as receiver under the orders of this court, and that, through the carelessness and negligence of said employes, the locomotive and passenger train, then passing over said road, ran over and killed said bitch, to the damage of petitioner $150. The answer admits the killing of the animal, but denies that it was the result of any want of care on the part of the engineer, but, on the contrary insists that it was unavoidable. Whether it was so or not is the only question to be decided under the proof taken and submitted by both parties. The testimony of the engineer and fireman running the train, taken together, if true, is a clear defense to the claim of petitioner. The evidence on the part of the petitioner makes a pretty strong prima facie case of liability. The petitioner, by his counsel, relies upon section 1059 of the Code of 1880, which reads as follows:

'In all actions against railroad companies for damage done to persons or property, proof of injury inflicted by the running of the locomotives or cars of such company shall be prima facie evidence of the want of reasonable skill and care upon the part of the servants of such company in reference to such injury.'

The reason for this exceptional rule of evidence is that these injuries are often committed (especially on property) when no one else observes them except the employes operating the train; and this is often the case in regard to injuries done to persons. Hence, after the injury is admitted or proved, it is but reasonable that the railroad company, or the receiver (as in this case,) having control of those who have the best opportunity to know, shall be called upon to explain how the accident or injury occurred. But I believe a fair construction of the statute is that, as soon as the prima facie case thus made out is rebutted by the evidence on the part of the defendant, the...