Mobile & Ohio Railroad v. Holt

Citations

• 62 Miss. 170

Syllabus

<p>1. Railroad Company. Action against for killing cow. Presumption of negligence. Proof of facts.</p> <p>Where, in an action to recover the value of a cow killed by a railroad company, the plaintiff proves the facts attending the killing of the animal, and they show that the defendant was not guilty of any negligence in respect thereto, there cambe no imputation of negligence under \\ 1059 of the Code of 1880, which makes proof of the injury complained of in such cases primd facie evidence of negligence on the part of the defendant; but if the evidence adduced by the defendant show facts from which such negligence may be inferred, then the jury, if they so believe, may find that the defendant was guilty of negligence in the matter complained of. Chicago, St. Louis and New Orleans Bail-road Company v. Packwood, 59 Miss. 280, distinguished.</p> <p>2. Same. Negligence in killing cow. Province of jury. Case in judgment.</p> <p>Where the defendant’s evidence in such case shows that the cow, driven from defendant’s track by the whistle of its locomotive, was obstructed'by a fence eighteen feet from the track and running parallel with it, and that she, after running along the fence for some distance, attempted to cross the road, and was thus caught by defendant’s train, it is for the jury to determine whether the defendant, whose train was permitted to run at full speed after frightening the cow from the track, was guilty of negligence in not anticipating her effort to cross the road and providing against striking her.</p>