Knight v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 03 December 1906
• Citation: 98 S.W. 81,122 Mo. App. 38
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
• Parties: KNIGHT et al. v. CHICAGO, R. I. & P. RY. CO.

98 S.W. 81

122 Mo. App. 38

KNIGHT et al. v. CHICAGO, R. I. & P. RY. CO.

Kansas City Court of Appeals. Missouri.

December 3, 1906.

1. RAILROADS — FIRES — DESTRUCTION OF MEADOW — MEASURE OF DAMAGES.

Where, in an action against a railroad company for burning plaintiff's meadow, it was claimed that the roots of the grass were so burned as to require reseeding, plaintiff was entitled to recover the value of the grass destroyed, and the rental value of the land for the succeeding year, but could not recover for the loss of a meadow crop and pasturage for the next year.

2. DAMAGES — AVOIDABLE CONSEQUENCES.

Where the burning of plaintiffs' meadow by defendant railroad company resulted in the destruction of the grass so as to require reseeding, plaintiffs were required, as farmers, to protect themselves against future loss so far as they reasonably could by tilling the land, and could not permit it to lie untilled and hold defendant for its rental value.

3. SAME — QUESTION FOR JURY.

After plaintiffs' meadow was destroyed by fire set out by defendant's engine, plaintiffs attempted to reseed it by feeding timothy hay to cattle thereon, and otherwise scattering seed over it during the winter of 1904 and 1905. They testified that such mode of reseeding looked promising in the spring, but that the dry weather which followed killed the grass, and left the meadow a total loss. Held, that whether plaintiffs had made a reasonable and proper effort to avoid a loss of the use of the land for the crop of 1905 was for the jury.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Davis County; J. W. Alexander, Judge.

Action by John W. Knight and others against the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.

M. A. Low and E. M. Harber, for appellant. Dudley & Selby, for respondents.

ELLISON, J.

The defendant railway company, by one of its passing locomotives, set fire to plaintiffs' adjoining meadow and, as plaintiffs claim, destroyed it. They brought this action for damages.

The evidence in behalf of the plaintiffs tended to show that in the fall of 1904 they had reserved the pasturage on the meadow field in question for later use, and that it was being so reserved on October 16th, when as they were about ready to turn their stock upon it, it was destroyed by defendant's setting fire thereto. Not only was that growth of grass destroyed, but the roots of the grass were burned so as to ruin it, and so as to require that it be reseeded, if desired for meadow. The following is the substance of an instruction given at plaintiffs' instance, viz., that they could recover the value of the grass destroyed by the fire, and the cost of reseeding the land, and also the loss of a crop of hay for the next (1905) season, and the fall pasturage of such season. We regard that part of the instruction allowing for the loss of a meadow crop and pasture for the next year after the fire as not the proper measure of damages. What the value of a crop to be produced in the future may be, is ordinarily too uncertain and conjectural to be the subject of judicial ascertainment. Favorable or unfavorable seasons for the growth of crops, favorable or unfavorable conditions of harvest, to say nothing of proper or improper cultivation, render the value of a future crop extremely problematical. Chicago v. Huenerbein, 85 Ill. 594, 28 Am. Rep....