The St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad Company v. Ludlum
Decision Date | 16 October 1897 |
Docket Number | 210 |
Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
Parties | THE ST. LOUIS & SAN FRANCISCO RAILROAD COMPANY v. C. B. LUDLUM |
October 16, 1897,
Error from Sedgwick Court of Common Pleas. Hon. Jacob M Balderston, Judge. Reversed.
Judgment reversed, and cause remanded.
J. W Gleed and C. Hamilton, for plaintiff in error. Gleed, Ware & Gleed and D. E. Palmer of counsel.
No appearance for defendant in error.
The defendant in error commenced this action against the plaintiff in error in the court below to recover damages occasioned by the negligence of the plaintiff in error in setting on fire and destroying certain personal property.
The case was tried to a jury, and a verdict rendered in favor of plaintiff below for three hundred dollars. The defendant below brings the case here for review.
A statute of this State provides:
"That in all actions against any railway company organized or doing business in this state, for damages by fire, caused by operating of said railroad, it shall be only necessary for the plaintiff in said action to establish the fact that said fire complained of was caused by the operating of said railroad, and the amount of his damages, (which proof shall be prima facie evidence of negligence on the part of said railroad): Provided, that in estimating the damages under this act, the contributory negligence of the plaintiff shall be taken into consideration." P 1321, Gen. Stat. 1889.
The allegation of negligence as set forth in the petition of plaintiff is as follows:
"That the said fire escaped from the said engine and was communicated to the said grass on account of the carelessness and negligence of the employees of the said defendant in care of said engine, and also on account of the careless, negligent, and imperfect construction of said engine, and the smokestacks and fire pans belonging thereto."
The only evidence contained in the record in support of this allegation, and the only evidence tending to establish the fact that the fire complained of was caused by the operation of the railroad, is the following testimony of the plaintiff:
Martha J. McCord was the only witness who claimed to have actually seen the fire start, and the only witness, aside from the plaintiff, who testified in any way as to the origin of the fire. The following is all of her testimony given both on direct and cross-examination:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Dolph v. Lake Shore & M. S. Ry. Co.
...the same holding may be found in Southern Ry. Co. v. Pace, 40 S. E. 723, 114 Ga. 712;St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Ludlum, 50 Pac. 456, 6 Kan. App. 700;Spaulding v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 33 Wis. 582;Kentucky Cent. R. Co. v. Talbot, 78 Ky. 621. The rule is founded in justice and sound reason. ......