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

Perkins VS.. Move; motioa for
ment denied. fso-
Richard Fleming, apper.. ant.
Reverend, as County aditor vs.: =. ~
county, responder; submit - - ~ n1 %soa
oy appellant; srgrsd by :nonSent and
taken rucer adsisernent.
julia Z. Greenleaf, r. ,snonde,t W Peter
r Eyan' appellant Argued and sub
Henry L. Gu' e, respondent, VS.. TIE City
OF ManAaIo'' .ppellant. Argued by appel
Aant; respo Ldent to submit on briefs.
Hos' So o. 50, 30, So, So, ~, Sc, s., 81, 95
anu =" 3, of calender were submitted On
ore 5. No. 3 was struck from the cal
% aer and Nos. %, IS and 124 continued.
Adjourned size die
| DECISIONS.
s. d. Nelson, respondent. VS.. the Chico
| go, Milwaukee & st. Paul RAILWAY COM
| p2ry, appellant.
| Sylabus-The liability os railroad
company under section 55, chapter 81
general stat ltes 1873, for Injuries to do
| nestle animals i'll consequence OF its neg
lect to build and maintain fences on each
side OF It's road is not limited to injuries
caused by collision with trains, bat extends
to any irjrry which is the natural and
pro1imafe consequence CT such neglect;
that ls, any injury to animals getting upon
the railroad which might naturally and
reasonably be expected to result from such
| neglect IN view of the cha ractcr aud condi-
| tlcn Of the railroad and the uses to which
ii is put.
But the statute does not change the gen
eral rules OF law governing liability for
! negligence, SO as to make railroad COM
pany liable for every injury which would
not have occurred had a fence been built,
| reg ardleSs o. the fact whether the neglect
10 fence was the proxinlate or only the re-
mote cause Of such injury. As in other
gases Of negligence the company is oh'-
| liable Tor Injuries of which TIE neglect .
| fence is he pro1irlate cause and which al @
the natural and pro1imate 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 il tee ground, not ordin arily danger
oas, and aboa6 Lac size o It's own foot. and
thereby. in some way rot otherwise ex-
planned, broke its leg.
Held, That the injury being one that is
not usual. ard which wouid not reasonably
aud nor usually be expected 10 result from
q neglect TO fence tferoad, cannot be said
20 be She natural ald proximate conse-
quence of such neglect, and hence must te
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: 81 agree to tbs final conclusio;
arrived at in the majority opinion, but Oh
jecS to the reasoning by which it is reached.
Under cur statute, think the liability OF
a railroad company for injuries to domes-
tic animals gong upon its so-called right
OF way in consequence of the company's
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 a lie
bility for what may, for short, be styled
railroad damages only, or such as result
from the fact that there is railroad the e..
The injury resulting in this case to tie
plaintiffs mule from stepping into the
small hole between the ties evidently does
not come within this description of DANA
ges."