Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. Seirer

Citations

• 60 Ill. 295

Syllabus

<p>1. Negligence — repairing fence. Where a person’s cattlebreak through the fence on the side of a railroad track, and the owner of the cattle repairs it with defective materials, in a temporary manner, but it is apparently sufficient, and liis pattle again break through the same place, and are killed, and it appears that he knew that the fence thus repaired was defective, and he failed to notify the employees of the company: Held, that he was guilty of negligence. The owner of adjoining lands has no right to remain inactive and let his cattle get upon the railroad track through the known deficiency of the fences along the road. When he undertook to repair the fence, and did it negligently, and failed to notify the company, he became liable for the natural consequences of his negligence.</p> <p>2. It was not error for the court to amend an instruction so as to inform the jury, in such a case, that the company should have had notice that the fence apparently good' was defective, before they would be liable for the injury to the stock. But the failure on the part of the owner to use reasonable efforts to notify the company of such defects, in any case where the defects are known to the proper agents of the company, would not justify the company in failing to repair. .</p> <p>3. In such a case, it was error for the court, without limitation or qualification, to instruct the jury that, if the fence was defective, the company were liable. It should not, under the facts in the case, have laid down the rule of absolute liability.</p>