Case ID: vt_67/html/0284-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "MUNSON, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

F. W. WATKINS v. WALLACE S. RIST.
    October Term, 1894.
    
      Fences. Whose duty to repair.
    
    The plaintiff’s fence was broken down by the unruly cattle of the defendant, which then and on subsequent occasions entered through the break, and damaged the plaintiff’s fields. Held, that the defendant was liable for damage to the fence and for damages to the fields until the plaintiff, had reasonable opportunity to repair the fence, but'not afterwards.
    Trespass quare clausum. Plea, the general issue. Trial by jury at the May term, 1894, Windsor county, Thompson, J., presiding. Verdict and judgment for the-plaintiff. The defendant excepts.
    
      W. W: Stickney and J. G. Sargent for the defendant.
    It was the duty of the plaintiff to repair this fence, and he cannot recover for damages resulting from his neglect to do-so. Keenan v. Cavenaugh, 44 Vt. 268 ; Scott v. Grover,. 56 Vt. 499; Eddy v. Kinney, 60 Vt. 554.
    
      Gilbert A. Davts for the plaintiff.
   MUNSON, J.

The plaintiff’s lawful fence was broken down by the defendant’s unruly cow ; and the defendant’s-cattle came upon the plaintiff’s land through the break at the time it was made, and continued to do so for some time thereafter. The court instructed the jury that the defendant was liable for every entry made by his cattle upon the plaintiff’s land through this opening. This was error. The plaintiff’s recovery should have been limited to such entries as occurred before he had had what was, in the circumstances, a reasonable time to repair the fence. The defendant was liable in damages for the injury done to the fence. The duty of repairing it rested upon the plaintiff.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded.