Texas & St. Louis R. R. Co. v. Young

Citations

• 60 Tex. 201
• 1883 Tex. LEXIS 300

Syllabus

<p>1. Negligence — Railway company, duty op as to cattle-guards.— As a general rule, it is the duty of a party to protect himself from the injurious consequences of the wrongful acts of another, if he can do so by ordinary effort and care, or at a moderate expense, for which he may charge the wrong-doer; and where by the use of such remedies he can prevent loss, he can only recover for such loss as could not be thus prevented.</p> <p>3. Same.— But to this rule there are exceptions; as where a railway company, by the construction of defective cattle-guards, jeopardizes the growing crops of a farmer, there is no obligation on the latter, who is not presumed to be skilled in such work, to assume the risk of having the defect corrected, or of exercising his judgment to select some one skilled in such work to do it for him. In such case, the farmer through whose inclosure the road runs may leave the whole matter of constructing and repairing stock-guards in the hands of the company, which has impliedly contracted to perform the work, and he is not chargeable with contributory negligence if damage shall result from his not attempting to repair the defect.</p> <p>3. Same — Statute construed.— The statute (R. S., 4343) which authorizes the owner of the land to construct or repair cattle-guards is not obligatory, but permissive only, and does not qualify or impair the obligation imposed on the railway company, whose road-bed crosses the inclosed lands of another, to construct and keep cattle-guards in proper repair.</p> <p>4. Distinguished. — This case distinguished from Loker v. Damon, 17 Pick., 288.</p> <p>6. Measure of damages.— The proper measure of damages for destruction of growing crops is their value at the time of their destruction. Following Sabine & E. T. R’y Co. v. Joachimi, 58 Tex., 456.</p> <p>6. Case discussed.— Ward v. Paducah R. R. Co., 4 Fed. Reporter, 863, discussed and distinguished from this case.</p>