Skip to main content
· 10/15/1875

Mississippi Central Railroad v. Mason

Citations

  • 51 Miss. 234

Syllabus

<p>. Liability of Railroad Company: Damages resulting from the obstruction of a watercourse. Concurrent negligence.</p> <p>The general rule with regard to concurrent negligence is, that the party seeking legal redress must not only show his adversary to be in the wrong, but must also prove that no negligence of his own has tended to increase or consummate the injury. To prevent a recovery the plaintiff’s negligence must proximately contribute to the injury. If the sole immediate cause of the injury was the defendant’s negligence, the plaintiff can recover, notwithstanding previous negligence of his own. Where the negligence of the defendant is proximate, and that of the plaintiff remote, the action will be sustained, though the plaintiff be not entirely without fault. Negligence is always a question for the jury, unless the facts are undisputed, and the result of those facts unquestionable as proving or disproving negligence. If the facts are conceded and the inference is doubtful, it should be a question for the jury, and not for the court. If a railroad company, by making imperfect sluices, or other passages for streams over which they pass, injure the land of the adjoining proprietors by overflow, the company is bound for the damages sustained by the obstruction of the stream.</p> <p>2. Same : Same : Negligence cmd credibility of witnesses, and the weight of the evidence, we questions for jury. Case in judgment.</p> <p>Whether the plaintiff’s acts contributed proximately to the injury, whether it was the result of natural causes, or of the erection of insufficient culverts, is a question for the consideration of the jury, who are the judges of the credibility of the witnesses, and the weight of testimony.</p> <p>Per Simrall, J.r on re-argument :</p> <p>8. Same: Same: Watercourse.</p> <p>The right of the owner of lands to the continued flow of the water, in its natural channel, can only be extinguished by operation of law, the act of God, or the act of himself. If

Judges: Peyton, Tarball

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced 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.