Watier v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Ry. Co.
| Decision Date | 13 August 1883 |
| Citation | 31 Minn. 91 |
| Parties | O. A. WATIER <I>vs.</I> CHICAGO, ST. PAUL, MINNEAPOLIS & OMAHA RAILWAY COMPANY. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
J. C. Nethaway, for appellant.
C. L. Catlin, for respondent.
The plaintiff's horse was turned loose in the city of Stillwater, whence it escaped into the town of Baytown, several miles distant, where it entered defendant's right of way through a defective or open fence, which defendant had neglected to keep up, and was killed by a passing train. The evidence established defendant's negligence, under the statute, in failing to maintain the fence but the action was dismissed by the trial court, on the ground that the animal was at the time unlawfully at large in violation of Sp. Laws 1881, c. 307. This act makes it unlawful for any person to allow his domestic animals to run at large upon the highways or lands of other persons in the towns of Stillwater and Baytown, and makes all persons violating its provisions liable for all damages that may occur in consequence of the trespass of such animals.
This is substantially declaratory of the common-law rule which prevails in this state, except in so far as it is abrogated by special legislation or municipal ordinances. Under this statute, as at the common law, a remedy is provided in favor of persons suffering damages from trespassing cattle, and land-owners are obliged to care for their own stock, but are not required to fence against their neighbors' cattle. 3 Kent, Comm. *439. Hence, they are not obliged to fence along the highways, and the provision in this act as respects highways is intended for the protection of the inhabitants from trespassing cattle, but was not intended to qualify the obligations of railroad companies, under the general law requiring them to maintain suitable fences and cattle-guards.
In the case of Locke v. First Div., etc., R. Co., 15 Minn. 283, (350,) and Witherell v. Mil. & St. P. Ry. Co., 24 Minn. 410, the question involved was the alleged negligent management of the defendant's trains, and had no reference whatever to the liabilities arising from the statutes obliging railway companies to build and maintain fences.
In Devine v. St. Paul & S. C. R. Co., 22 Minn. 8, it was held, under the special charter of the defendant in that case, that it was bound to fence through improved lands only, and, as a consequence, liable to the owners or occupants of such lands only. Such legislation afforded, as it would seem, inadequate protection to stock-owners and for the safety of railway passengers, and the legislature, therefore, have made the law general in its application. Gen. St. 1878, c. 34, §§ 54-57.
Under the present statute, it is the duty of railway companies to maintain fences and cattle-guards, not only as respects cattle of adjoining owners, but all domestic animals, whether trespassing or otherwise. It was within the province of the legislature to create such obligation and impose the liability, and we believe such to have been its purpose in enacting the present law. It was doubtless influenced largely by public considerations, and it was intended to make the law uniform in its operation, without regard to the fact whether the lands traversed by the lines of road were improved or unimproved, and irrespective of the regulations which might prevail in the different towns or counties as respects cattle running at...
To continue reading
Request your trial