Mongogna v. Illinois Cent. R.

Citations

• 115 La. 598
• 39 So. 699
• 1905 La. LEXIS 705

Syllabus

<p>1. Railroads — Killing Stock — Negligence.</p> <p>This suit was for damages for the killing by a train of the defendant company of a mule then on its track. The Court of Appeal rendered judgment in favor of the defendant, and plaintiff brought the case to the Supreme Court for review.</p> <p>The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeal, placing its affirmance, not upon the theory adopted by that court that “the mule was a trespasser on defendant’s tracks,” and defendant owed it and its owner no duty, that it was not bound to keep a lookout for trespassing, but because the element of intentional mischief which alone could make defendant liable was not present, but because defendant had established affirmatively its non-liability, showing that the killing of the mule was not the result of fraud or carelessness on its part, or the negligence or indifferent running or management of its locomotive or train.</p> <p>2. Same — Knowledge oe Danger.</p> <p>The Supreme Court quotes approvingly the following extract from Shearman & Redfield on Negligence: “The defendant is responsible, not only for what he actually knows, but for that which he is bound to know.”</p> <p>3. Same — Due Diligence.</p> <p>The object and purpose of Act No. 70, p. 109, of 1886, was not to make railroad companies insurers of the stock which may be killed in the operation of their trains, but to exact from them the exercise of the legal caution and vigilance which a due regard for the rights of the others would require to be exercised under the circumstances of each case.</p> <p>(Syllabus by the Court.)</p>