Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Mitchell

• Decision Date: 25 June 1890
• Citation: 24 N.E. 1065,124 Ind. 473
• Parties: Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Mitchell.
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

124 Ind. 473

24 N.E. 1065

Pennsylvania R. Co.

v.Mitchell.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

June 25, 1890.

Appeal from circuit court, Morgan county; Ambrose M. Cunning, Judge.

S. O. Pickins, for appellant. Mitchell & Cox, for appellee.

Mitchell, J.

The appellant railroad company was sued by the appellee for the value of two mules alleged to have been killed on the company's railroad track by its locomotive and cars. The case was tried upon a complaint which charged that the track was not securely fenced at the point where the animals entered. The chief question debated here is whether the railroad company was required to fence its track at the place where the animals entered upon its right of way. It is abundantly settled that a railroad company is not liable for injuries to animals that enter upon its track at places where to maintain fences would interfere with the discharge of its duty to the public, or with the right of the public in the use of a highway, or in doing business with the company, nor at any place where fences and connecting cattle-guards would make the running and handling of trains, or the necessary and proper switching of cars, more hazardous to its employes. When animals enter upon railroad grounds at such places, and are killed within limits that cannot and are not required to be fenced, the company is not liable. Railroad Co. v. Jones, 111 Ind. 259, 12 N. E. Rep. 113, and case cited. Railroad companies cannot be required to erect and maintain fences along uninclosed and improved lands, nor in the platted portions of cities, towns, and villages, but they are nevertheless liable for injury to animals that enter upon their tracks at such places, in case the track was not, but might have been, securely fenced without interfering with the discharge of its duty to the public, or without increasing the danger to its employes in the discharge of their duties. These are conceded propositions, about which there is no dispute. It is conceded that the tracks were not fenced at the place where the animals entered, nor where they were killed. The contention is as to the liability of the company, notwithstanding the absence of the fence; the insistence on the one hand being that a fence and connecting cattle-pits could not have been maintained without subjecting the trainmen of the company to additional perils, while it is contended on the other hand that the evidence fairly sustains the opposite conclusion. We concede that the...