Mississippi Central Railroad v. Butler

Railroads. Live stocle on trade. Code 1906, § 4043. Municipal limits. Code 1906, § 4043, making railroad companies liable for injuries resulting from running trains within a, municipality at a rate of speed exceeding six miles an hour, has no application where the injury was inflicted outside of municipal limits, although the train just before inflicting the injury had been running within such limits faster than the statutory rate.

Prom the circuit court of Jefferson Davis county. Hon. Wiley IT. Potter, Judge. Butler, appellee, was plaintiff in the court below; the railroad company, appellant, was defendant there. Prom a judgment in plaintiff’s favor the railroad company appealed to the supreme court. Plaintiff sued to recover damages, $225, the alleged value of a mare killed upon the defendant’s railroad track. The declaration set forth that the animal, without fault of plaintiff, strayed upon the railroad track “at or near the corporate limits of the town of Prentiss; and the defendant company, by its agents and servants, not regarding its duty in that respect, so carelessly and negligently ran and managed one of its locomotives and trains that the same ran against and over said mare and killed her, to the great damage of plaintiff,” etc. The evi■denee disclosed that the animal was struck about seventy-five .yards outside of the corporate limits of the town, by an outward bound passenger train en route from Prentiss. The opin' .-ion sufficiently sets forth the further proceedings in court. The evidence showed that the mare was grazing near the railroad track at a point where the track passed through a curve, and therefore the engineer did not see her until the engine was close upon her. On the approach of the engine and train, the .animal ran away from the track, but when the engine was very close to her, she turned and attempted to cross the track in front of the engine. There was no fault on the part of the employees of the railroad company; it was an unavoidable accident. The mare was killed at a point about seventy-five yards outside of the limits of the town. The train was outward bound, •on its way from Prentiss to Silver Creek. The engine and 'train were in perfect repair and running at a rate of about twenty-five miles an hour. Whatever may have been the rate of speed within the limits of the town, or just immediately before it passed over the corporation line, it does not appear that the rate of speed inside of the town had anything to do with the killing of the animal. Under the circumstances, had the train been running at a rate of speed of only six miles an hour, and the animal had run, as she actually did, in front of the moving •engine so suddenly as not to allow time for the engineer to stop the engine, the result to the animal would have been the same. Negligence was not attributable to the appellant. Alabama, etc., B. Go. v. Slacy, (Miss.), 35 South. 137; Louisville, etc., B. Go. v. Smith, 67 Miss. 15, 7 South. 212; Yazoo, etc., B. Go. v. Smith, 68 Miss. 359, 8 South. 508; Gantreel v. Kansas Oily, etc'., B. Go., 69 Miss. 435, 10 South. 580 y Alabama, etc., B. Go. <o. Boyles., (Miss.), 37 South. 498. It cannot be contended that, if the engineer had not been Tunning the train at a greater speed than six miles an hour as the train passed the corporate limits, the accident would not have occurred. It is distinctly shown in evidence that the fact that the train just before it passed outside of the town limits, was going over six miles an hour, had absolutely nothing to do-with the injury. Hence, the court below erred in granting tin instruction in reference to the running of a train at a speed over-six miles an hour in a municipality, predicated of Code 1906, § 4043. This code section cannot be stretched to the extent ^ of making it cover, blanket-like, an accident outside the limits-of a municipality. There can be no doubt that the injury resulted solely because-of the fast speed of the engine and train, which speed had accumulated while the train was still within the corporate limits of the town. The jury, under the instructions, practically found that if the train had not been operated at such rapid speed within the municipality, this injury, happening just-without the town limits, would never have occurred.' Bailroad corporations, in runnings their trains through incorporated towns, act at their peril in exceeding the speed allowed by law, and are liable for all damages resulting from such excess of speed, where the injury from which the damage-accrues results from excess of speed, gained within the limits of the municipality. New Orleans, etc., Bailroad Co. v.. Toulme, 59 Miss. 284; Illinois, etc., Bailroad Co. v. Jordan, 63' Miss. 458. It will be noted that the proof of injury by the train made-out a prima facie case for appellee, and the appellant did not show, and in fact could not show, that the rear coach of the long-passenger train was not still within the corporate limits of the town at the instant when the injury occurred, or that an unlawful rate of speed was not being maintained in the town limits at the time the mare was struck.