Woodland v. Union Pacific Railway Co.

• Decision Date: 02 April 1891
• Citation: 26 P. 298,27 Utah 543
• Court: Utah Supreme Court
• Parties: WOODLAND and Another, Respondents, v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, a Corporation, Appellant

26 P. 298

27 Utah 543

WOODLAND and Another, Respondents, v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, a Corporation, Appellant

Supreme Court of Utah

April 2, 1891

Appeal from the First District Court.--Hon. James A. Miner, Judge.

Action to recover damages for the negligent killing of plaintiffs' live stock by defendant company. From a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, the defendant appealed.

AFFIRMED.

P. L Williams, Esq., and Waldemar Van Cott, Esq., for appellant.

Messrs Evans & Rogers for respondents.

ZANE C. J. ANDERSON and BLACKBURN, JJ., concur.

OPINION

ZANE, C. J.

--This action was instituted in the district court to recover damages for the killing of five horses of the plaintiffs in consequence, as alleged, of the negligence of the agents of the defendant in running its trains. In the complaint the killing of each horse is set out separately as a cause of action. In answer to the complaint the defendant denied both the killing and the negligence. A jury was sworn to try the issues, and, after hearing the evidence, and receiving the charge of the court, it retired, and returned a verdict against the defendant on all the counts, and on this verdict the court entered judgment, from which the defendant appealed to this court. The defendant insists that the judgment was erroneous, because the evidence did not prove that the horse mentioned in the fifth count of the complaint was killed in consequence of its negligence. It appears from the evidence that the defendant's road passed through plaintiffs' pasture, and that it was unfenced; that plaintiffs' horse was grazing about 100 feet east of the track, and that some other horses were on the west side; that, as a freight train of the defendant approached, the horse ran in a southwesterly direction, and towards the horses on the west side; that after running about 100 yards he got onto the track a short distance ahead of the engine, and was there overtaken and killed; that no obstructions prevented the engineer or other person on the engine from seeing the horse; that the train was running a little down grade, but not fast. In view of the evidence we do not find that the verdict of the jury was so palpably and clearly wrong as to require the court to set it aside. In its charge the court informed the jurors that if they found that the horses were killed in consequence of the negligence of the defendant they should find their value at the time ...