Mire v. Yazoo & Mississippi Valley Railroad

Citations

• 105 La. 462

Syllabus

<p>Syllabus.</p> <p>Until the enactment of Statute 70 of 1886 to recover from a railroad corporation for stock killed or injured, one had to prove his demands. He had the onus of proof, and it devolved upon him to show that the injury was the result of defendant’s negligence. By Statute 70 of 1886, the onus of proof is shifted from plaintiff to defendant, and defendant must sustain the material grounds raised in defense.</p> <p>Judged by the statutory rule of evidence, it is not with sufficient certainty shown that defendant is not liable. •</p> <p>Part of the property was destroyed by defendant’s cars, without its coming to the knowledge of its. employees on the train. The running train collided with one of the animals of plaintiff at one place; a little further on it collided with another ; and, possibly, still further on with a third of plaintiff's animals. The distance run (keeping into account the distance that the headlight threw its light ahead of the train) was distance enough within which to stop the train before arriving at a place where a number of mules were killed, for the value of which the court holds that the defendant is liable. The employees not having seen the two, or possibly the three mules at all, it appears reasonably certain that no timely action was taken toward avoiding the killing of those that had huddled together at the place where a number'were killed'or injured, and for which defendant is.held liable.</p>