Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1899-11-02
COURT DECISIONS.
Eotes Of Cases Recently Decided,
Which are Of Interest to
Our People.
DIGESTED BY ". b. MARTIN.
Exclusively for virE,nlan- Pllot)
BOSTON EXCELSIOR CO. v. BAN
COR. * a. II. CO.
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.
June l, 1899.

June L, 1917.
A RAILROAD COMPANY is LIABLE
FOR FIRES CAUSED BY IT'S EN-
GINES, EVEN THOUGH THE FIRE
FIRST CAUGHT WOOD OF PLAIN
TIFF PILED ON DEFENDANTS
LAND BY ITS LEAVE, AND WAS
FROM THAT COMMUNICATED TO
OTHER PROPERTY ON PLAIN
TIFTS LAND ADJOINING.
This was an action for damages
against Il railroad company caused by
1irn originating from the engines OF
the railroad company. There was n
verdict for plaintiff and the defendant
appealed.
The Court says:
Section Ga OF chapter 81 of the Re-
vlsed Statutes declares that when a
building or other property is injured by
lire communicated by locomotive en-
CINE, tho corporation using it Is respon-
sibie for such injury =" In the
writ the plaintiff claims to recover in
the first place, by virtue of the ahso-
Lutte responsibility imposed upon the de-
PENDANT by this statute, and, secondly,
BY reason of he liability OF the defend
ant at common law. on the ground of
negligence respecting the condition and
management of It's locomotive engine.
portion III the plaintiffs property
destroyed contested OF split poplar
wood part of which wRS piled upon
the defendants land and the balance
upon the adjoining land OF thc plaintiff.
The Instructions TO which the defend
ants exceptions were taken related
solely to the rights and liabilities of
the parties in the even; that the wood
piled on the DEFENDANTS land was
wrongfully therc. AS it is now found
to have been lawfully there by con-
sent of the defendant, It becomes UNI
necessary TO consider the exceptions.
But the defendant contends that the
plaintiff company cannot recover in
this action because it was guilty OF con-
'ributory negligence in depositing it's
wood In such close proximity TO the
railroad track. with fun knowledge OF
the danger from fire 10 which it would
be subjected.
The question OF the defendants neg
llgencc Is not an issue The simple fact
that the fire causing the injury was
communicated by one of tho defend
ants locomotive engines is sufficient TO
establish The cause OF action. The alb
solute liability thereby cast upon the
defendant cannot be defeated by proof
of The highest possible degree OF care
I'm the mana cement of It's railroad
trains. No case has been cited by coun-
sci. from which 1t appears that tho
contributory negligence of the plaintiff
has in fact been successfully invoked in
dcfense of an action based upon such a
statute or in which Ii has been direct
~ determined rs n matter OF law by the
court OF last resort in any state; that
the doctrine of con:rbutory negligence
is applicable to such an action.
.Af,er a careful examination of all the
facts in this case. it is the opinion of
the court that If the defendant had
hcen entitled to the instruction given in
its favor unon this point. there was
sufficient evidence to authorize the find
ing OF the jury that the plaintiff was
not guilty Of negligence. or, If so. that
Il did not contribute as a proXimatc
cause 20 tho loss Of the plaintiffs prop
erty. Affirmed