Mississippi Home Insurance v. Louisville, New Orleans & Texas Railway Co.

Citations

• 70 Miss. 119

Syllabus

<p>1. Railroads. Fires. Contributory negligence. Master and servant.</p> <p>In an action against a railway company to recover the value of a. mill destroyed by lire, alleged to have been negligently set out by a locomotive, where it is shown that the employes of the mill were charged with the duty of extinguishing fires, it is not error to instruct that if, after discovering the fire, they could have extinguished it, but failed to use ordinary diligence in doing so, the plaintiff cannot recover.</p> <p>2. Same. Adjacent property. Anticipating negligence. Fires.</p> <p>An owner of property adjacent to a railroad, who uses it in a natural and ordinary way for purposes to which it is suited, is not called on to anticipate negligence on the part of the railway company, and his failure to so manage his property as to provide against danger from negligent emission of sparks by passing locomotives, is not contributory negligence.</p> <p>3. Danger of Fire. Use of adjacent property. Sight of aimer.</p> <p>Accordingly, it is error to refuse to instruct that a person owning property contiguous to a railroad has a right to continue to use the property alter the railroad has been built in the same manner as before, if he takes reasonable care to prevent or extinguish fires.</p> <p>4. Risk of Adjacent Owner. Duty of company. Degree of care.</p> <p>On the other hand, in taking the lancUfor the right of way, it is to be assumed that the owner was compensated for the enhanced danger from fire caused by the location of the track. This includes the danger of fires accidentally, but not negligently, set out. Therefore, in an action by such owner for the value of property destroyed by fire through the alleged negligence of the defendant, it is proper to refuse to instruct that the defendant is required to exercise the utmost care to prevent the escape of fire, and that the care should be determined by the situation and condition of plaintiff’s property, and the method of conducting his