Skip to main content
· 5/15/1870

Raiford v. Mississippi Central Railroad

Citations

  • 43 Miss. 233

Syllabus

<p>1. Demubeee to Evidence__Upon demurrer to evidence, the court stands instead of a jury, and may indulge all the inferences tliat a jury might indulge from the facts proved. [1 Johns. R., 29; i Cranch, 219.] And in such case, the question for a revising court is very much like that presented when reconsidering the general verdict of a jury. [5 How., 555.]</p> <p>2. Allowing Stock to bun at large in the Range. — The owner of stock may allow them to go at large in uninclosed woods and fields, and the owner of the uninclosed soil has no remedy. But-in such case the owner of the stock -takes the risk of them loss or injury by unavoidable accident;</p> <p>3. Stock injured by Railroad Trains. — The owner of stock permitting them to range in proximity to passing trains, and to wander on an uninclosed track, incurs the risk of all unavoidable accidents.</p> <p>4. Prober Care and Duty of Railroad Companies in respect to Stock in the Range — But the fact of stock thus wandering on the track does not justify, the agents or servants of the company in regarding them as there unlawfully, or relieve them from the observance of proper care and precaution for their safety. -The company will be held responsible, under our statute, for the “mismanagement” or “neglect ” of its agents or servants.</p> <p>5. Railroad Companies — Rights oe, in respect to Stock in Range. — Railroad companies have a right to run their trains at reasonable speed, day and night, being controlled'by custom and the exigencies of travel and freights, and not in any degree by the liability of stock to wander on the track.</p> <p>6. Same. — In the case at bar the animals killod were galloping along the track at night, within thirty yards of the train, when first seen by the engineer; the night was foggy, there was a good head-light, the alarm whistle was blown, and the speed-was reduced, from about fifteen miles to seven and a half miles, per hour. Held: That the company was not responsible for damages.</p>

Judges: Simrall

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.