Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Childers v. Louisville, New Albany & Chicago Railway Co.

Indiana Court of Appeals

Decided June 11, 1895No. 1,605Published

From the Monroe Circuit Court.

1Concurrence

Concurring Opinion.

Davis, J. —

The owner is not necessarily a wrongdoer when, without fault on his part, stock escapes from his premises. Louisville, etc., R. W. Co. v. Ousler, 36 N. E. Rep. 290; Ohio, etc., R. W. Co. v. Craycraft, 5 Ind. App. 335.

Ordinarily, my opinion would be that if the duty to fence, as required by statute, is negligently violated and the violation of the duty is the proximate cause of the *689injury, tlie right of action of the owner of the stock is clear and complete. Section 5323, R. S. 1894; Louisville, etc., R. W. Co. v. Hendricks, 128 Ind. 462.

The courts, however, have…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Louisville, New Albany & Chicago Railway Co. v. HendricksIndiana Supreme Court · 1891
  2. Jeffersonville, Madison & Indianapolis Railroad v. DunlapIndiana Supreme Court · 1887
  3. Ohio & Mississippi Railway Co. v. CraycraftIndiana Court of Appeals · 1892
  4. Fort Wayne, Cincinnati & Louisville Railroad v. O'KeefeIndiana Court of Appeals · 1892

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API