Wait v. Bennington & R.R. Co.
| Decision Date | 06 February 1889 |
| Citation | 17 A. 284,61 Vt. 268 |
| Parties | JONATHAN WAIT v. BENNINGTON & RUTLAND R. R. CO |
| Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
GENERAL TERM, OCTOBER, 1888. [Copyrighted Material Omitted] [Copyrighted Material Omitted]
This was an action on the case for negligence. Plea, the general issue, trial by jury. Verdict for the defendant.
Judgment affirmed.
W. B. Sheldon and J. C. Baker, for the plaintiff.
The questions in this case arise upon the charge; the objections made to it are, first, that it "was misleading, as it placed the statute before the jury as a means for the protection of passengers, and submitted it to the jury to say whether the defendant had fairly done its duty to that end and purpose." The court told the jury that the object of requiring cattle-guards was undoubtedly two-fold, the safety of passengers and the safety of animals straying upon the track, and that these objects must be borne in mind when inquiring whether the defendant had done its duty within the meaning of the statute. We think the purposes and objects of the statute were fairly and fully explained by the court. The safety of passengers and the safety of animals upon the track, were questions so intimately connected that they could not well have been divorced, for the danger to the former arose directly from the injury to the latter; the cattle-guard was the means of preventing both, and it was not error to place before the jury the statute in respect to both; but admitting it was error, the plaintiff could not have been injured by the instruction that the defendant must not only have performed its duty in respect to preventing animals straying upon its track, but, in addition to that, must also have fulfilled its duty in regard to its passengers. The jury could not have understood from the charge that if the company performed its duty in respect to passengers, it was relieved from that in regard to animals getting upon the track. It seems to us that not only was the plaintiff not injured by the charge, but benefited, by having the burden cast upon the defendant of showing that it had fulfilled its duty in both respects. The charge of the court required the defendant to satisfy the jury that it had performed its whole duty in maintaining its cattle-guards, in respect of its passengers, as well as animals getting upon its track, and if that part of the charge relating to passengers could have been omitted without error, its being given benefited rather than injured the plaintiff for the reason...
To continue reading
Request your trial