Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co. v. Harris
Citations
- 54 Ill. 528
Syllabus
<p>1. Fencing bailboads—negligence—liability for injury to stock. Railroad companies are required to fence the tracks of their roads with sufficient fences to turn stock, and after erecting them, to keep them in repair; they are required to put in gates at farm crossings, which are a part of the fence, and the duty to keep their fences in repair, includes the duty of keeping these gates safe and securely closed, so as to afford equal protection from stock getting upon their roads at such places as at other points.</p> <p>2. While these companies are not required to keep such a guard on their reads as Avould see a breach at the instant it occurs, and repair it at the time, still the law requires them to keep such a force as may discover breaches and openings in their fences, and close them in a reasonable time. And to neglect doing so, for a week or more, is a neglect of duty that will ordinarily render them liable for an injury ensuing therefrom.</p> <p>3. So in an action against a railroad company, to recover for injuries to two horses, inflicted by a train on defendants’ road, where it appeared the horses passed upon the track through an open gate at a farm crossing, the company, having permitted the gate to remain open for a week previous to the accident, were regarded as guilty of such negligence as rendered them liable.</p> <p>4. The fact that plaintiff’s horses entered the close of another, through an insufficient fence upon the highway, and passed from thence upon the defendants’ road, could not affect his right of recovery.</p> <p>5. Same—of comparative negligence. And upon objection that the plaintiff was so far in fault in permitting Ms horses to run at large, when prohibited by the statute, that he should not be permitted to recover, it appearing the escape of the horses was involuntary on his part, that he made reasonable efforts to reclaim them soon after their escape, but was unsuccessful, continuing the search for them until dark of the night they wer
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- “[Fjather has the right to administer proper and reasonable chastisement to his child without being guilty of an assault and battery, but he has no right to administer unreasonable chastisement, or to be guilty of cruel and inhuman treatment of his child-”
- “[Fjather has the right to administer proper and reasonable chastisement to his child without being guilty of an assault and battery, but he has no right to administer unreasonable chastisement, or to be guilty of cruel and inhuman treatment of his child....”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Walker
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.