Mobile, Jackson & Kansas City Railroad Company v. Kea
| Decision Date | 13 December 1909 |
| Citation | 50 So. 628,96 Miss. 195 |
| Parties | MOBILE, JACKSON & KANSAS CITY RAILROAD COMPANY v. JASPER J. KEA |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
October 1909
FROM the circuit court of Neshoba county, HON. JAMES R. BYRD Judge.
Kea appellee, was plaintiff in the court below; the railroad company, appellant, was defendant there. From a judgment in plaintiff's favor defendant appealed to the supreme court. The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court.
Reversed and remanded.
Flowers, Fletcher & Whitfield, for appellant.
There is no conflict in regard to the facts. The witnesses are in accord as to how the accident happened, and, we submit, no liability of appellant is shown. The peremptory instruction asked by defendant should have been given. Yazoo, etc., R. Co. v. Brumfield, 64 Miss. 637; Yazoo, etc., R. Co. v. Whittington, 74 Miss. 410; Mobile, etc., R. Co. v. Weems, 74 Miss. 513; Yazoo, etc., R. Co. v. Wright, 78 Miss. 125; Lowe v. Alabama, etc., Ry. Co., 81 Miss. 9; Bedford v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 65 Miss. 385; Hamlin v. Yazoo, etc., R. Co., 72 Miss. 39; Owens v. Illinois, etc., R. Co., 77 Miss. 142; Nichols v. Gulf, etc., R. Co., 83 Miss. 126.
The authorities cited show that the prima facie statute, Code 1906, § 1985, is not applicable to the case and that there is, under the facts, no liability on defendant; the case of Lowe v. Alabama, etc., Ry. Co., supra, is conclusive on the latter point.
Byrd, Wilson & Richardson, for appellee.
Appellant's counsel have, unwittingly of course, assumed the whole case in their statement of it; they have inadvertently omitted those features of the case which impose liability on their client.
This case falls, on its facts, squarely within the decision of this court in Yazoo, etc., R. Co. v. Lambuth, 74 Miss. 758, 21 So. 801, a case wherein the horse was not struck by the train, but suffered injury from being frightened by it and running into a wire fence. Other decisions of this court applicable to the case at bar are: Young v. Illinois, etc., R. Co., 88 Miss. 446, 40 So. 870; McMillan v. Southern R. Co., 75 Miss. 490, 23 So. 182, and Newman v. Vicksburg, etc., R. Co., 64 Miss. 115.
From a judgment in the court below, awarding appellee damages for an injury to his mare, this appeal is taken. It will not be necessary to state the facts in this case; but it will be sufficient to say that this mare was not struck by the train, or injured by the running thereof, but became frightened thereat. and ran along the side of the track for some distance, then upon and down the track ahead of the train, and into a trestle, thereby sustaining her injuries.
The court, at the request of appellee, charged the jury, under section 1985 of the Code of 1906, that proof of injury by the running of the locomotive or cars of the company was prima facie evidence of the want of reasonable skill and care on the part of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Alabama & Alabama & Vicksburg Railway Co. v. Thornhill
...72 Miss. 39; 77 Miss. 142; 83 Miss. 126; 83 Miss. 721; 85 Miss. 269; 87 Miss. 482; 87 Miss. 652; 88 Miss. 446; 91 Miss. 273; 91 Miss. 546; 96 Miss. 195; Miss. 71; 14 So. 462; 28 So. 939; 36 So. 155; 19 So. 661; 21 So. 108; 1 Miss. Dec. 317; 92 Miss. 532; 55 So. 40; 95 Miss. 41; 96 Miss. 28;......
-
Yazoo & M. V. R. Co. v. Day
... ... motor car used by railroad section hands frightened a horse ... at a ... HON. R ... E. JACKSON, Judge ... APPEAL ... from the ... Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant ... ...
-
Mobile, J. & K.C.R. Co. v. Kea
...the locomotives or cars of appellant, as in section 1985 of the Code, raising the presumption of negligence, does not apply. M. J. & K. C. R. Co. v. Kea, 50 So. 628; v. A. & V. R. Co., 51 Miss. 9. 2. Before recovery can be had for injury to an animal which has strayed upon the tracks of a r......
- Watson v. State