Tingle v. Chi., B. & Q. Ry. Co.
| Decision Date | 15 December 1882 |
| Citation | 60 Iowa 333,14 N.W. 320 |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
| Parties | TINGLE v. CHICAGO, B. & Q. RY. CO. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Lucas circuit court.
The plaintiff claims of the defendant $35 for the alleged killing of plaintiff's cow upon a public highway by a locomotive and train operated by the defendant on Sunday. The defendant filed a demurrer to the petition, which the court overruled. The defendant elected to stand upon its demurrer, and judgment was entered against the defendant for the amount claimed. The defendant appeals.Stuart Bros., for appellant.
W. S. Dungan, for appellee.
The amount in controversy not exceeding $100, the court certified for our determination the following question: “When a railroad company unlawfully runs its trains on Sunday in violation of the provisions of section 4072 of the Code, and while so running strikes and kills a cow at a point where its track crosses a public highway, when said animal was lawfully running at large at the time, is said railway company liable for said injury, in the absence of negligence on the part of the railroad, or its employes operating said train?” Section 4072 of the Code provides that if any person be found on the first day of the week, commonly called Sabbath, engaged in any labor, the work of necessity and charity only excepted, he shall, on conviction, be fined in a sum not more than five dollars, nor less than one dollar. The question which we have now to determine is whether the simple operation of a train in violation of the provisions of this statute, renders a railroad company liable for all damages accidentally occurring without fault or negligence on its part, other than the mere operating of the train. Although this question has never been determined in this state, yet principles have been settled which, in our opinion, are decisive of it.
In Schmid v. Humphrey, 48 Iowa, 652, it was held that the right of a party to recover damages for injuries resulting from the frightening of his horses by the defendant's dogs, was not affected by the fact that the injury was sustained while the plaintiff was riding on a business errand on Sunday, in violation of the provisions of section 4072 of the Code.
In Sutton v. Town of Wauwatossa, 29 Wis. 21, after an exhaustive review of the authorities, it was held that the fact that plaintiff was driving his cattle to market on Sunday in violation of the statute, when they were injured by the breaking down of a defective bridge...
To continue reading
Request your trial