TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Indianapolis, Pittsburg, & Cleveland Railroad v. Brownenburg

The Indianapolis, Pittsburg, and Cleveland Railroad Company v. Brownenburg

Indianapolis, Pittsburg, & Cleveland R.R. v. Brownenburg, 32 Ind. 199 (1869)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Indiana Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
November 15, 1869
Judges
Erazeb
Citations
32 Ind. 199
Headnotes
Railroad.— Contract.—Negligence.—A land-owner granted a railroad company the right of way for its road over his land, in part consideration of which the company agreed, that whatever damage might be done to the-grantor’s property by the running of the cars on said railroad should be reimbursed by the company. Held, that the railroad company was not bound by this contract to answer in damages^or the consequences of the land-owner’s negligence. Held, also, that it was negligence on the part of the land-owner to confine • his animals in an enclosure embracing a portion of the railroad track, where it was crossed by a private lane, with no bars or other appliances to restrain them from loitering on the tract; and that where being so confined, they were injured without carelessness of the persons running the cars, the company was not liable.
Summary
APPEAL from the Madison Circuit Court.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Erazeb

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Erazeb, C. J.

— This case originated before a justice, whence it was appealed to the circuit court, where the appellee had judgment for twenty-five dollars! It is here on the evidence, a motion for a new trial having been overruled.

The appellee granted the appellant the right of way for its railroad, in consideration of which the appellant, amongst other things, agreed that “ whatever damage might be done to his (the appellee’s) property by the running of the cars on-said railroad is to be reimbursed” by the company. The plaintiff resided on the north side of the railroad, but had a pasture inclosed on the south side, with a private lane running from near his house southward across the railroad to the pasture. The north end of this lane was closed by bars, but when animals were turned 'into, the pasture there was nothing to keep them oif the railroad1 at the crossing. Cattle-guards on each side of the lane kept animals from following the line of the railroad. A hog of the plaintiff) confined in the lane and pasture, was killed by the cars at this crossing. There was no evidence of carelessness by the persons running the cars.

It is not a fair construction of the company’s contract to hold them bound to answer in damages for the consequences of the plaintiff’s own negligence. To confine his animals in an inclosure embracing a portion of the railroad track, with no bars or other appliances to restrain them from loitering on it—a place of known danger—was, in our. opinion, negligence on his part, the consequences of which must fall upon himself.

Judgment reversed, with costs; cause remanded for a new trial. ;

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1903: 11959: 11963: 11966: 11991: 119032026peak 1903 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Moore Heating & Plumbing, Inc. v. Huber583 N.E.2d 142 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991)
  2. New York Central Railroad v. Northern Indiana Public Service Co.221 N.E.2d 442 (Ind. Ct. App. 1966)
  3. Metropolitan Paving Co. v. Gordon Herkenhoff & Associates, Inc.341 P.2d 460 (N.M. 1959)
  4. Norkus v. General Motors Corporation218 F. Supp. 398 (S.D. Ind. 1963)
  5. Illinois Central R. R. v. J. L. Fulton Co.108 Ill. App. 234 (1903)

Most recent

  1. Moore Heating & Plumbing, Inc. v. Huber583 N.E.2d 142 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991)
  2. New York Central Railroad v. Northern Indiana Public Service Co.221 N.E.2d 442 (Ind. Ct. App. 1966)
  3. Norkus v. General Motors Corporation218 F. Supp. 398 (S.D. Ind. 1963)
  4. Metropolitan Paving Co. v. Gordon Herkenhoff & Associates, Inc.341 P.2d 460 (N.M. 1959)
  5. Illinois Central R. R. v. J. L. Fulton Co.108 Ill. App. 234 (1903)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list