Case ID: mich_45/html/0451-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Marston, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Grand Rapids & Indiana R. R. Co. v. Alexander Cameron.
    
      Railroad companies — Side fencing — Injuries io cattle — Modification of requests to charge.
    
    The statutory liability of a railway company for injuries to cattle resulting from its neglect to put up and maintain side-fencing is not affected by the contributory negligence of the owner of the cattle. Act 198 of 1873.
    Where a charge, considered as a whole, cures an apparent error committed by the court in modifying a request for an instruction, the judgment will not be reversed for such error.
    Error to Kalamazoo.
    Submitted Jan. 18.
    Decided Jan. 28.
    Case. Defendant brings error.
    Affirmed.
    
      D. Darwin Hughes, Jr. for plaintiff in error.
    Contributory negligence is a defense to an action for injury resulting from neglect of a railroad company to obey the statutory requirement to maintain side-fencing: Curry v. Railroad 43 Wis. 665 ; Jones v. Railroad 42 Wis. 306 ; Lawrence v. Railway id. 322; Hance v. Railroad 26 N. Y. 428 ; Towne v. Railroad 124 Mass. 101; Eames v. Railroad 98 Mass. 560; 
      Trow v. Vt. Cent. R. R. 24 Vt. 487; Ross v. R. R. 6 Allen 87; Chic. & Alton R. R. v. Fears 53 Ill. 115; Peoria etc. Railroad v. Champ 75 Ill. 577.
    
      Osoa/r T. Tuthill for defendant in error.
    The liability of a railroad company under a statute giving damages for injuries resulting from its neglect to maintain side-fencing is absolute: 1 Redf. Railways 466-490; Robinson v. Grand Trunk Ry 32 Mich: 322; C. C. C. & I. R. R. Co. v. Brown 45 Ind. 90; Gilman v. R. R. Co. 60 Me. 235; Chic. & Alton R. R. v. Umphenour 69 Ill. 198; Poler v. N. Y. C. R.R. 16 N. Y. 476; Williams v. New Alb. R. R. 5 Ind. 111; Tol. & Wabash R. R. v. Cohen 44 Ind. 444; McKinney v. O. & M. R. R. 22 Ind. 99 ; Norris v. Androscoggin R. R. 39 Me. 273; Corwin v. N. Y. & E. R. R. 13 N. Y. 42; Brown v. Milwaukee Ry 21 Wis. 39; Laude v. Chic. R. R. 33 Wis. 640; Rogers v. Newburyport R. R. 1 Allen 16; Ind. & C. R. R. v. Townsend 10 Ind. 38; Jeffersonville Ry v. Applegate id. 49.
   Marston, C. J.

In Flint & Pere Marquette Ry Co. v. Lull 28 Mich. 510, it was held that the liability of the company under the statute for injuries to cattle, by reason of the company’s fences not being put up and maintained, was not affected by the contributory negligence of the owner of the cattle. This disposes of several of the errors assigned in this court. It may be that the modification of the defendant’s sixth request, if standing alone, could not be sustained, but when we examine the' entire charge as given, we are of opinion that the error, if any, was cured. The charge on the whole was even more favorable in some respects than the law would warrant.

The judgment must be affirmed with costs.

Campbell and Graves, JJ. concurred.

Cooley, J. did not sit in this case.