Colvin v. Sutherland
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from, the Clark Circuit Court. — Hon. Ben. E. Turner, Judge. Instructions one and two given for plaintiff were erroneous.
Read the full summary
Appeal from, the Clark Circuit Court. — Hon. Ben. E. Turner, Judge. Instructions one and two given for plaintiff were erroneous. These instructions assert the proposition that a “reasonable safeguard,” if in the form of a barbed-wire fence, must be at least four and a half feet high; that, if the safeguard was less than four and a half feet high, and so constructed as to injure an animal .running into it; then defendants are liable, notwithstanding any fault or contributory negligence on the part of plaintiff. This proposition is certainly without authority in law. Montgomery v. Railroad, 90…
1Opinion of the CourtRombauer, P. J.
The defendants were railroad contractors, and as such engaged in excavating the roadbed for (a railroad at right angles across a public highway. The proposed excavation at that point was sixteen feet deep. The defendants, to guard the public, erected a post and wire fence, commonly known as a barb-wire fence, across the public highway on each side of the railroad excavation, and at some little distance therefrom, and deflected the public road at that point so that it crossed the roadbed by a detour on a level, returning into the old roadbed on the other side.
The evidence tended to show that…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Hughes v. Hannibal & St. Jo. R. R.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1877
- Turner v. ThomasSupreme Court of Missouri · 1880
3Cited by6 opinions
- Scott v. DunnSupreme Court of Alabama · 1982
- Means v. MorganAlabama Court of Appeals · 1911
- Pelham v. SpearsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1931
- Scott v. DunnSupreme Court of Alabama · 1982
- Teague v. ClemonsMissouri Court of Appeals · 1914
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.