Little Rock Traction & Electric Co. v. Dunlap
| Decision Date | 16 June 1900 |
| Citation | 57 S.W. 938,68 Ark. 291 |
| Parties | LITTLE ROCK TRACTION & ELECTRIC COMPANY v. DUNLAP |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court, second Division, JOS. W. MARTIN Judge.
STATEMENT BY THE COURT.
The Little Rock Traction & Electric Company operates a street railway in the city of Little Rock. A line of this railway passes along Eleventh street where that street crosses West Spring street. At that point there is a cut along West Spring street some ten or fifteen feet below the grade of Eleventh street, and the railway is carried on a bridge or trestle above West Spring street. The trestle is planked making a passageway for pedestrians along the center of Eleventh street, but is not used for passage of vehicles. This bridge was constructed by the street-car company for its own convenience, but in accordance with plans furnished by the city engineer. The plaintiff, Geo. W. Dunlap, who lived two or three blocks away from this bridge, was the owner of a horse "blind in one eye and moon-eyed in the other." The horse was not blind, but his vision was so defective that he could not see the ground at his feet, but could see objects some feet away with one eye. The bridge was beyond the stock limits of the city, and on the day of the accident Dunlap turned his horse out to graze. The horse passing along the street, walked partly across the bridge became frightened, and then attempted to turn, but in doing so he fell from the bridge, and was killed. Thereupon Dunlap brought this action against the company to recover damages. On the trial there was a verdict in favor of plaintiff for $ 25, and judgment accordingly, from which the company appealed.
Judgment affirmed.
Rose, Hemingway & Rose, for appellant.
At common law, the owner of cattle or horses could take them on the highway for no other purpose than mere passage. Elliott, Roads & Streets, § 316. In this state the owner of cattle is not liable in trespass when they stray on the highway or another's enclosed land. 48 Ark. 369; 37 Ark. 562. But the landowner is under no obligation to expend money or labor in preparing the land for a convenient or safe enjoyment of it. 47 Ill. 333; 66 Mo. 325; 74 Ill. 435; 6 Pa.St. 472; 46 Ark. 207; 55 Mo. 580; 71 N. Car. 222; 57 Ark. 21. For whatever defect there was in the plans of construction, the city is responsible. 54 Conn. 574; 87 Mo. 673; 4 Oh. St. 95; 98 F. 694.
Fulk, Fulk & Fulk, for appellee.
The verdict is supported by evidence, and will not be reversed. 40 Ark. 168; 57 Ark. 577. Appellant was chargeable with knowledge that the bridge was dangerous, and was guilty of negligence. 60 Ark. 545; 46 Ark. 207. Appellee was not negligent. 46 Ark. 207; 57 Ark. 569; Thompson, Neg. 497-8; 46 Ill. 495.
RIDDICK, J., (after stating the facts.)
The plaintiff contends that the company was guilty of negligence in failing to put railings along the side of the bridge constructed by it across the cut in the street, and that this negligence occasioned the injury. While the company was not required by any order of the city or its engineer to put railings along the sides of the bridge, still there is nothing in the evidence to show that it was forbidden to do so, and the question presented is whether the jury were justified in finding that the company was guilty of negligence in failing to put up railings.
If one should, with the permission of the city, for his own advantage cut a ditch across a public street, and leave it unguarded and in a condition liable to injure those passing along the street, he would be guilty of negligence, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial