Chicago & Eastern Illinois Railroad v. Guertin
Citations
- 115 Ill. 466
- 4 N.E. 507
Syllabus
<p>1. Negligence—fencing railroads—not on the right of way—duty and-liability of the railroad company. A railway company which erects a fence and- gate along its right of way, a few feet beyond the same and upon the land of the adjoining owner, and keeps the same in repair for some time, and then suffers it to get out of repair, whereby stock escapes through the same and strays upon the track and is killed, can not escape liability to the owner of the stock on the ground such fence and gate are not on its right of way, when it has given no prior notice that it will not keep up such repairs any longer.</p> <p>2. Same—estoppel of.railroad company to deny its liability to maintain a fence at a particular point, as, near its depot grounds. Where a railway company has erected, and for a number of years maintained, a fence along the side of and near its right of way, and near a station, but suffered it to become defective, whereby stock got upon its track and were killed, it can not exonerate itself from liability on the ground of its higher duty to the public of keeping its depot grounds open for the convenience of thpse having business with the road. So long as it permits such fence to stand and be relied on by others as a fence required by statute, it will be estopped from denying its duty to keep it in proper repair.</p> <p>3. 'Evidence—relevancy to issue. In an action against a railway company to recover for the killing of animals, based on a neglect of the company to keep a gate in a fence built by it in repair, through which stock escaped and got upon the track, where they' were killed, the defendant offered to prove that the erection of cattle-guards or a fence along its side-tracks would greatly endanger the lives of its employes, and inconvenience the public at large in loading and unloading cars from the side-tracks, and the cattle-guards would weaken the road bed, and'thereby endanger the lives of passengers: Held, that the evidence was properly excluded, as t
Judges: Tunnicliff
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.