Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. v. Van Natta

Indiana Court of Appeals

Decided April 2, 1909No. 6,296Published

From Superior Court of Tippecanoe County; Henry H. Vinton, Judge. Action by William S. Van Natta and another against the Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago and St. Louis Railway Company. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendant appeals.

1Concurrence

Concurring Opinions.

Roby, J.

I think that when it is shown by the complaint in a case of this character that the defendant owns and operates a railroad, and has disregarded its statutory duty to fence the same, and that stock, entering upon its track because of such neglect, was struck by one of its trains and killed, liability is complete. This is the plain provision of the statute. §5447 Burns 1908, Acts 1885, p. 224, §1.

I also think that when it is averred that locomotives and trains running over such railroad were operated by the agents, servants and employes of the company owning and…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. v. AdamsIndiana Court of Appeals · 1900
  2. Wabash Railroad v. LintonIndiana Court of Appeals · 1901

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

Powered by the Exa API