The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1873-08-26
,a,,,.sny uorsshsn could tie

land more et,tiio w ~
nrnnertv Of eny one else. He had no rleht
10 hi them goBofs the company land for any J,
r,,,rnose sezccps transit. and be was poun y
not to IeS then13go there except In charse =.
& driver or of some one to see tnat tnes
crossed without stopping or stfay'ng. TOT
any other purpose they were: there nnIa"-
fuiIg.- See Railroad Company Us. EVa'i''
supra. ,a ,vas
bound. ike any traveller on a highway, NJ !,
ra;roed: -creasiiss to stop and look ana
listen for the train. Railroad Is. Evans
Railroad Company u.s.. CoZle, I. r. Snl,.l
Pennsylvania State Reports, $50; NOT: IA.
r. r. Co. us. Holman, 40 Pennsylvania ota'e
'FRONT.' WINS bound to keep his stock of the
road by fencing Gf he had been pa,d lol
fencing. which we must presume haa Dee.,
done). His gates are part Of has fence, aIlu
il Is his legal obligation to keep MS ghtes
shut as fully as it is to keep bis fence up
He lets the one be down or the otner NC
omen al his peril; and it is bis place 10 set
TO il that they are always kept shut ana u
take every precaution by locks, DC, 10 secuIe
their being shut save when used lor i"' III
| transit, as stated ..ra IT,, III
Did he do this? On the contrary, ne uiu
| NOT lock the gates, but permitted the pugle
to omen and pass through them at their plea
sure thi,s multiplying to the railroad coti''
/ nonv the risk of accident to their properly
and to their passengers by stock Passing
through said gates. r
Trout had no right to do this, or TO eA. y,
tend or abuse his privilege to the detrilneu'
| of the company. ,a .,,e
The railroad company had acquired Tue
fee simple of the land subject TO tnlS ehsc,
ment of his, of simple transit for hlnisel' n,'t
his nroperty. He could not give 10 inc p =,
Tc a ripht of access and transit, ana p'ey
,rere frespnsscrs on the railroad lana, ana
he aras party TO the treSpass. 4. .,,,
IF he did not actually give the rlgnt 10 Iue
u,hIr TO enter on the companys land he
enrourared and abettcd the treSpasS, ana nc
abused the privilege Of having gates ny
lo,vinr them free for the unlawful access oi
,he ntIbIii.-an act of commission on his part.
lie failed to lock his gates, and left them loi
nnv one to open and leave open--an, a &c o.
omission. And he was as responslD'e toi
The negligence Of others as II IL "e'e h''
own. under these circumstances.
II looks to me Us if be we're not only
o,iltv of concurrent negligence, but of posi-
Two yyronr-doing to the railroad company.
True there were no cattle guards at the farm.
nrnssinr None were needed. for the COM
n.nv hid to provide only for cattle which
ywo,,ld be in care of drivers in transtu. Had
there been such guards they would have been
trans. not required by the case /; and had
Irout's cattle been injured by them, might
he not have recovered of the company?
It appears to me that so far from the COM
pany being liable TO Trout for his horses,
Trout would be liable to the company for any
accident or consequence of his neglect to
keep his gates shut or his fence up; that 1t
is hard to let the railroad company be sub
ected to the vast increase of liability, dam
ger, and impeachment which would be caused
by allowing every owner Of an easement or
private crossing to convert it, &c nero n'otu,
into public highway, more exposed TO the
ncursons of stock than the public road
itself; and that the safety of the travelling
public as well as the interests OF the railroad
company demand that the owners of private
crossings should not be released from the
duty of seeing to it that their gates on it are
secured, and should not be relieved from
full responsibility for any omission OF that
duty.
That this is an important point in the in
fancy of our State adjudications in the rail-
road cases must be my apology for ven:ur-
ing this criticism.
a MEMBER OF TIE VIRGINIA BAR.