Perrine v. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Co.

Citations

• 44 Pa. Super. 235
• 1910 Pa. Super. LEXIS 159

Syllabus

<p>Railroads — Cattle guards — Negligence—Evidence—Acts of March 28, 1868, P. L. 514, and April 17, 1869, P. L. 1125.</p> <p>1. The fact that a railroad company maintains a cattle guard which in the opinions of its officers is a proper and sufficient device will not relieve the company from liability under the local Act of March 28, 1868, P. L. 514, extended to Venango county by the Act of April 17, 1869, P. L. 1125, for the loss of cattle where the evidence offered by the owner of the cattle tends to show that the plan adopted by the .company did not result in excluding orderly cattle from the track. In such a case the question whether the company has performed its duty is for the jury.</p> <p>2. Where a railroad company has neglected to establish and maintain a proper cattle guard as required by the Act of March 28, 1868, P. L. 514, it is not relieved from liability for the loss of cattle by the fact that the fences around the field of the owner of the cattle were insufficient to restrain orderly cattle.</p> <p>3. The Act of April 4, 1889, P. L. 27, which repeals the first section of the Act of 1700, 1 Sm. L. 13, does not repeal by implication the local laws in operation in numerous counties which require railroad companies operating railroads therein to fence their rights of way and maintain sufficient cattle guards.</p>