Benn v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.

Citations

• 89 Wash. 522
• 154 P. 1082
• 1916 Wash. LEXIS 725

Syllabus

<p>Railroads — Injury to Animals on Track — Negligence—Evidence —-Sueetciency. The court cannot find, as a matter of law, that a freight train of sixteen cars, going twenty-eight to thirty miles an hour, could be stopped within a distance of six hundred and fifty feet, especially where all the evidence on the subject was to the effect that the engineer had immediately made every effort to stop the train and could not do so within that distance.</p> <p>Same — Duty to Fence — Statutes. A railroad company is not compelled to fence its depot and side tracks at a station outside of an incorporated city, under Rem. & Bal. Code, §§ 8730, 8731, requiring fencing outside of any incorporated city “and outside the limits of any sidetrack or switch” and requiring cattle guards at highway crossings “and at each end of such sidetrack or switch, outside of any incorporated city.”</p> <p>Same — Injury to Stock on Track — Failure to Fence — Proximate Cause. Where the law does not require the fencing of station grounds or switches outside incorporated cities, the want of a fence is not the proximate cause of the death of stock killed on the tracks within such grounds.</p> <p>Same — Injury to Stock on Track — Failure to Fence — Negligence — Presumptions. Under Rem. & Bal. Code, §§ 8730, 8731, requiring a railroad to fence its tracks and raising a presumption of negligence in the event stock is killed at a point where the track is not fenced, an omission to fence only makes a prima facie case of negligence which the company may overcome by evidence.</p>