Fanning v. Long Island Railroad
New York Supreme Court
Appeal 'from a judgment of the Suffolk county court, affirming a judgment of a justice’s court. The action was for the killing by one of defendant’s trains of a steer belonging to the plaintiff. By the evidence it appeared that the defendant’s railroad runs through plaintiff’s farm.
Read the full summary
Appeal 'from a judgment of the Suffolk county court, affirming a judgment of a justice’s court. The action was for the killing by one of defendant’s trains of a steer belonging to the plaintiff. By the evidence it appeared that the defendant’s railroad runs through plaintiff’s farm. There was, on the 80th of July, 1867, a fence on each side of the railroad, across the farm; but at a certain lane which ran through the farm and across the railroad, there was neither fence, gate or bars, nor cattle-guards. It was shown that at that point, gates or bars were necessary for plaintiff’s use. On the…
1Opinion of the CourtBarnard, P. J.
The defendants Avere liable for the killing of the plaintiff’s steer, if they did kill it, because they had not fenced their road, “ Avith openings or gates or bars therein” at the plaintiff’s farm crossings, and had not constructed cattle guards sufficient to prevent cattle from getting on to their railroad. Laws of 1850, chap. 140, § 44; Laws of 1854, chap. 282, § 8; Staats v. H. R. R. R. Co., 3 Keyes, 196; Corwin v. Erie Railway, 13 N. Y. 42; Tracy v. T. & B. R. R. Co., 38 id. 433.
The liability does not depend upon any consideration of negligence of defendant, or contributory negligence of…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Corwin v. . the New-York and Erie Railroad Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1855
- Staats v. Hudson River RailroadNew York Court of Appeals · 1866