Page:Henry Osborn Taylor, A Treatise on the Law of Private Corporations (5th ed, 1905).djvu/373

 PART IV.] LIABILITY FOR TORTS OF AGENTS. [§ 369 - to the company. 1 Likewise, a railroad company is bound to use the most approved methods to prevent the escape of sparks from its locomotives; 2 and the fact that sparks escaped and set fire to property, has been held prima facie evidence of its negligence. 3 But the weight of authority, when no statute affects the case, places the burden on the plaintiff to show neg- ligence on the part of the railroad company. 4 § 369. In the absence of statute, a railroad company is not bound to fence its road to keep off cattle ; still, if cattle get on the track and the company's servants negligently run them down, the company will be liable, provided the accident could 1 Doland v. Del. and Hud. Canal Co., 71 N. Y. 285. Compare as to duties of railroad company to give warning of its approaching trains, Parsons v. N. Y. Central, etc., R. R. Co., 113 N. Y. 355. 2 Wiley u. West Jersey R. R. Co., 44 N. J. L. 247; St. Louis, A. & T. H. R. R. Co. v. Gilham, 39 111. 455; Illi- nois Central R. R. Co. v. McClelland, 42 111. 355; Pittsburgh, C. & St. L. R. R. Co. u. Nelson, 51 Ind. 150. See Hoff v. West Jersey R. R. Co., 45 N. J. L. 400; West Jersey R. R. Co. v. Abbott, 60 X. J. L. 150. 3 Simpson v. Railroad Co., 5 Lea (Teun. ), 456; International and G. N. Ry. Co. v. Towusend, 61 Tex. 660; Burke v. Louisville and X. R. R. Co., 7 Heisk. (Tenn.) 451; Coates v. Mis- souri, K. and T. Ry. Co., 61 Mo. 38. See Spaulding v. Chicago and N. W. Ry. Co., 30 Wis. 110; Farrington v. Rutland R. R. Co., 72 Vt. 24. But if it appears that the railroad com- pany was not negligent, it will not be liable. Burroughs v. Housatonic R. R. Co., 15 Conn. 124; Hinds v. Barton ? 25 X. Y. 544; Frankford, etc., Turn- pike Co. v. Phila., etc., R. R. Co., 54 Pa. St. 345; Vaughn v. Taff Vale Ry. Co., 5 H. & N. 679. 4 Albert v. Northern Central Ry. Co., 98 Pa. St. 316; Railroad Co. v, 23 Yeiser, 8 Pa. St. 366; Huyett v. Phila., etc., R. R. Co., 23 Pa. St. 373; Phila. and Reading R. R. Co. v. Yeager, 73 Pa. St. 121; Gandy v. Chicago and N. W. R'y Co., 30 Iowa, 420; McCutnmaus v. Same, 33 Iowa, 187; Burroughs v. Housatonic R. R. Co., 15 Conn. 124; Morris and Essex R. R. Co. v. State, 36 N. J. L. 553; Indianapolis and Cin. R. R. Co. v. Passmore, 31 Ind. 143; Smith v. Hannibal, etc., R. R. Co., 37 Mo. 287; McCready t Railroad Co., 2 Strob. L. (S. C.) 356; Firo v. Buffalo, etc., R. R. Co., 22 N. Y. 209; Ruff- ner v. Cincinnati, etc., R. R. Co., 34 O. St. 96; Jefferies v. Philadelphia, etc., R. R. Co., 3 Houston (Del.), 447. See Kans. Pac. R. R. Co. o. Butts, 7 Kans. 308. But see Fitch v. Pacific R. R. Co., 45 Mo. 322; Bedford v. Hannibal and St. Jo. R. R. Co., 46 Mo. 456; Palmer p. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co., 76 Mo. 217. But this burden may readily be shifted by circumstances showing that, without negligence, the accident would not have happened. Field v. N. Y. C. R. R. Co., 32 N. Y. 339; Garrett v. Chicago and X. W. R'y Co., 36 Iowa, 121. Compare Lindsay v. Winona, etc., R. R. Co., 29 Minn. 411: Woodson v. Milwaukee, etc., R. R. Co., 21 Minn. 60. 353