St. Louis, A. & T. Ry. Co. v. McKinsey
| Decision Date | 28 October 1890 |
| Citation | 14 S.W. 645 |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
| Parties | ST. LOUIS, A. & T. RY. CO. v. McKINSEY. |
Perkins, Gilbert & Perkins, for appellant.
E. A. McKinsey purchased two horses on the 13th day of November, 1887, then recently driven from south-west Texas, and put them in his pasture, through which the St. Louis, Arkansas & Texas Railway Company in Texas operated its railroad. Three days thereafter, the railway company negligently set fire to the pasture fence and destroyed it, and the horses escaped. After several months' diligent search through Hopkins and adjacent counties, McKinsey failed to find his horses, and brought this suit against the railway company to recover their value. The trial without a jury resulted in judgment for plaintiff for $150, the alleged value of the horses, and the railway company appealed.
By the first assignment of error, the appellant complains that the court erred in its conclusion of law that the destruction of the pasture fence was the proximate cause of the loss of the horses. It is not denied that the fence was destroyed by the negligence of the defendant, nor that the horses thereby escaped; but it is contended that, the court having failed to find that appellant "had any notice of the character or kind of horses in the pasture," it would not be liable for damages resulting from the loss of the horses in consequence of their having been recently driven from a remote part of the state. The general rule is, "When a defendant has violated a duty, he should be held liable to every person injured whose injury is the natural and probable consequence of the misconduct; and that the liability extends to such injuries as might reasonably have been anticipated, under ordinary circumstances, as the natural and probable result of the wongful act." Seale v. Railway Co., 65 Tex. 278. As to what character of intervening act will break the casual connection between the original wrongful act and the injury, and thereby relieve the wrong-doer of liability for the injury, it is said: "If the intervening cause, and its probable or reasonable consequences, be such as could reasonably have been anticipated by the original wrong-doer, the current of authority seems to be that the connection is not broken." 65 Tex. 278. We think it should be conclusively presumed that the defendant had notice that the plaintiff would use...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Evansville Hoop & Stave Co. v. Bailey
...26 S. W. 1075, 24 L. R. A. 642;Gonzales v. Galveston, etc., 84 Tex. 3, 19 S. W. 284, 31 Am. St. Rep. 17;St. Louis, etc., v. McKinsey, 78 Tex. 298, 14 S. W. 645, 22 Am. St. Rep. 54;Seale v. Gulf, etc., 65 Tex. 274, 57 Am. Rep. 602;Weick v. Lander, 75 Ill. 93;Brown v. Wabash, St. L. & P. Ry. ......
-
Savannah Elec. Co. v. Wheeler
... ... Ry. Co. v. Webb, 116 Ga. 152, 42 S.E. 395, 59 L.R.A ... 109; Thompson on Negligence, § 59; St. Louis Ry. Co. v ... McKinsey, 78 Tex. 298, 14 S.W. 645, 22 Am.St.Rep. 54 ... 3. It ... requires no argument to show that it was ... ...
-
Savannah Electric Co v. Wheeler
...Southern Ry. Co. v. Webb, 116 Ga. 152, 42 S. E. 395, 59 L. R. A. 109; Thompson on Negligence, 5 59; St, Louis Ry. Co. v. McKinsey, 78 Tex. 298, 14 S. W. 645, 22 Am. St. Rep. 54. 3. It requires no argument to show that it was negligent to knowingly place a drunken conductor armed with a pist......
-
Southwestern Telegraph & Telephone Co. v. Long
...139; Gonzales v. City of Galveston, 84 Tex. 3, 19 S. W. 284, 31 Am. St. Rep. 17; Jones v. George, 61 Tex. 346; Railway v. McKinsey, 78 Tex. 298, 14 S. W. 645, 22 Am. St. Rep. 54; Weick v. Lander, 75 Ill. This reasoning applies with more force where the original tort is not the negligent omi......