Nelson v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 27 June 1889
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
• Parties: NELSON v MINNEAPOLIS & ST. L. RY. CO.

41 Minn. 131

42 N.W. 788

NELSONvMINNEAPOLIS & ST. L. RY. CO.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

June 27, 1889.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

1. A railway company is liable for damages to an abutting farm, rendering its use less valuable, caused by a failure to fence its road. Following Emmons v. Railway Co., 35 Minn. 503,29 N. W. Rep. 202.

2. The measure of damages in such a case is the depreciation in the rental value of the farm, which means the value of its use for any purpose for which it is adapted in the hands of a prudent and discreet farmer upon a judicious system of husbandry; and evidence of any fact tending to show how and to what extent the absence of a railway fence injuriously affected the value of such use is competent.

Appeal from district court, Freeborn county: FARMER, Judge.

Action by Ole Nelson against the Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Company for damages for failure of defendant to fence its road through plaintiff's farm. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.

B. S. Lewis and J. D. Springer, for appellant.

Lovely, Morgan & Morgan and Walter J. Trask, for respondent.

MITCHELL, J.

This action is similar to that of Emmons v. Railway Co., 35 Minn. 503,29 N. W. Rep. 202, in which we held that, under Gen. St. 1878, c. 34, § 57, a railway company is liable for damages to an abutting farm, rendering its use less valuable, caused by a failure to fence its road. Counsel for the defendant asks us to reconsider the question, and overrule that case. After a careful consideration of his argument our views remain unchanged.

We do not propose to re-enter upon a discussion of the question further than to say that we think the fallacy of counsel's argument consists in assuming that, because the statute requiring railways to fence their roads is a police regulation, the object of which is to prevent animals from getting upon the track, and the consequent danger to the animals themselves and to railway passengers and employés, therefore it is in excess of the police power of the state to impose any liabilities for non-compliance with the law other than for resultant injuries to animals and railway passengers and employés. The police legislation of the country abounds in the imposition of penalties and liabilities, beyond such resultant injuries, as a means of enforcing strict compliance with the statute; and we know of no means more likely to insure prompt obedience to the requirements of this “fence law” than the provisions of ...