Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1882-12-16
SUPREME COURT.

Perkins VS.. Move; motion fog rear. a. 4
ment denied.
Richard Fleming, appellant, vs.. E. K
Reverend, as County Auditor of Housf' IN
county, respondent; submitted on + REFS
by appellant; argued by responde- 1t and
taken under advisement.
Julia F. Greenleaf, responde' II We Patar
F. Egan, appellant. Argr I'D and sub
mitsed.
Henry L. Guide, RESI-. ondent, VS.. the City
OF Mankato, appeair-nt. Argued by appel
lant; respon dens TO submit on briefs.
Nos 8, ~, 81, So, So, -, Sc, 93, 81, 95
ana lO3, OF calender were submitted on
briefs. NO. s was struck from the cal
ender and Nos. 90, Is and 124 continued.
Adjourned sine die
5. >. Nelson, respondent, vs.. the Chica-
go: Milwaukee & st. Paul Railway com
| pany, appellant.
Syilabus-The liability of railroad
| company under section So, chapter 81,
general statutes 1878, for injuries to do
mestlc animals in consequence of its neg-
lect to build and maintain fences on each
side of its road is not limited to injuries
caused by collision with trains, bat extends
to any injury which is the natural and
prOxlmate consequence Of such neglect;
that is, any injury to animals getting upon
the railroad which might naturally and
reasonably be expected to result from such
neglect IN view of the character and condi-
| tlon OF the railroad and the uses to which
it is put.
But the statute does not change the gen
erai rules OF law governing liability for
negligence, SO as to make railroad COM
pany liable for every injury which would
not have occurred had fence been built
regardless OF the fact whether the neglect
to fence was the proximate or only the re-
mote cause of such injury. AS in other
cases Of negligence the company Is only
liable for injuries of which the neglect to
fence Is the prox;mate cause and which are
the natural and proximate consequences of
such neglect.
In this case the evidence tended to show
that the animal, while running along the
railroad track, set its foot INTO small
hole in the ground, not ordinarily danger
Gus, and about the size OF its own foot. and
planned. broke its leg.
Held, That the injury being one that is
not usual, and which would not reasonably
/ NSNe'AAJ
a neglect to fence the road, cannot be said
to be the natural and proxir1ate conse-
quence of such neglect. and hence must be
attributable to chance or accident, and not
to the neglect of the defendant.
Order reversed and new trial ordered.
( MITCHELL. j.
| Associate Justice Berry, dissents in part,
as follows: Il agree to the final conclusion
arrived at in the majority opinion, but OBJ
y iect to the reasoning by which il is reached.
Under our statute, think the liability of
a railroad company for injuries to domes-
tic animals going upon its so-called right
of way in consequence of the company 5
neglect to build or maintain fences,is liza
bility for such damages only as result from
the fact the right of way is used for rail-
road purposes. In other words, it is liza
bility for what may, for short, be styled
railroad damages only, or such as result
from the fact that there is railroad there.
The injury resulting in this case to the
plaintiffs mule from stepping into the
small hole between the ties evidently does
not come within this description of DANA
ges."