Case Name: John Moss and Wife v. Geo. H. Pendleton and Others
Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Kentucky
Decision Date: 1872-12-26
Citations: 6 Ky. Op. 161
Docket Number: 
Parties: John Moss and Wife v. Geo. H. Pendleton and Others.
Judges: 
Reporter: Kentucky Opinions, containing the unreported opinions of the Court of Appeals
Volume: 6
Pages: 161–162

Head Matter:
John Moss and Wife v. Geo. H. Pendleton and Others.
Railroads — Killing Animals — Liability.
A railroad company was not held liable for the killing of -a horse by its train on the 28th of July, 1869, by the careless- and negligent running of the -train, since at that -time there was no statutory liability for such act, and such liability -did not exist at common law.
APPEAL FROM KENTON CIRCUIT COURT.
December 26, 1872.

Opinion:
Opinion by
Judge Lindsay:
The averment upon which appellants seek t-o recover the value of the horse alleged to have been killed, is that the appellees "by their agents and servants, engineers and conductors, carelessly and negligently running a train of cars along, and' upon the track of said road, in said county of Kenton, ran against and over and killed unlawfully and wrongfully one black gelding horse about nine years old and of the value of $110.
At common law the appellees were not liable for injuries to stock straying upon their track, inflicted by their trains, unless such injuries were the result of the willful negligence or reckless conduct of those in charge of the train-. Louisville and Frankfort R. Co. v. Ballard, 2 Metcalfe 183; O'Bannon v. L. C. & L. R. Co., 8 Bush 348.
C. H. Moor, for appellants.
Benton, for appellees.
By an act approved December 7, 1869, railroad companies were made liable for such injuries when they should result from negligence or carelessness. Session Acts 1869-70, page 1.
Appellants allege that their horse was killed on the 28th of July, 1869, four months before the passage of this act. Their petition, therefore, presented no cause of action; for this .reason it is not necessary that other questions discussed by counsel should be considered.
Judgment affirmed.