Sibilrud v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Co.
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for Freeborn county, Farmer, J., presiding, refusing a new trial. 1 Thompson on Negligence, 122, i:»8, n. 3; Spaulding y.CMc. A ZCijT. By.'do., 30 Win. 110; Woodwn v. 3Lrf. é St. P. R. Co., 21 Minn. fii); Spaulding v. Chic. &N. W. Ry. ('<>., 33 Wis. 582; Brusberg v. M. L. S. Ji-W. Ry. Go., 6 N. W. Eep. 821.
1Opinion of the CourtDickinson, J.
Appeal from an order refusing a new trial. The action is for negligence in respect to the construction and operating of one of defendant’s locomotives,' by reason of which fire is alleged to have been communicated to the grass allowed to remain upon defendant’s right of -way, and thence to plaintiff’s premises adjacent thereto, destroying his property. "There .was evidence going to show that the fire occurred at a time when vegetation was very dry; that tall dry grass had been suffered to remain upon the right of way within a few feet of the track, and. adjacent to plaintiff’s premises; that…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific Railway Co. v. JohnsonIndiana Supreme Court · 1884
- Continental Insurance v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1906
- Osborne v. Chicago & West Michigan Railway Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1896