Perry v. Southern Pacific Railroad (1875) · DecisionDepot

Perry v. Southern Pacific Railroad

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Supreme Court Jul 1, 1875 No. No. 3920Published

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that allowing dry grass to accumulate on a railroad track is not negligence per se, but rather evidence from which a jury may infer negligence based on surrounding circumstances.

Issues

Whether the presence of dry grass on a railroad track constitutes negligence per se.
Whether the proximate cause of property destruction resulting from a fire is a question of fact for the jury.

Disposition. reversed and remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The permitting of dry grass to remain, “which would readily take fire,” was not negligence per se, but evidence from which negligence might or might not be inferred by the jury, reference being had to the surrounding circumstances.”

“And whether the destruction of plaintiff’s property was the proximate result to be reasonably expected from defendant’s negligence, was also a question of fact to be submitted to the jury.”

Synopsis

Negligence op Railboad Company in Case op Eibe.—If a railroad company permits dry grass, which will readily take fire, to remain on its track, it is not negligence per se, but a fact from which negligence may be inferred by the jury in an action to recover damages for the destruction of a crop, alleged to have been set on fire by sparks from an engine.

Question pok Juey in Case op Railboad Company.—If a crop is destroyed by fire on the line of a railroad, and the fire originates from a spark emitted from the engine, which ignites the grass some distance from the crop, the question whether the destruction of the crop was the proximate result to be reasonably expected from the carelessness of the railroad company, is one of fact for the jury.

By the Court: The court below instructed the jury, in effect, that if dry grass had been allowed to remain on the track, and fire had been communicated to it from the engine, the defendant was liable for “all damages occasioned by the ignition of such grass,” etc.

This was error. The permitting of dry grass to remain, “which would readily take fire,” was not negligence per se, but evidence from which negligence might or might not be inferred by the jury, reference being had to the surrounding circumstances. (Illinois Central v. Mills, 42 Ill. 407.)

And whether the destruction of plaintiff’s property was the proximate result to be reasonably expected from defendant’s negligence, was also a question of fact to be submitted to the jury. (Henry v. Southern P. R. R. Co., ante, p. 176.)

The question herein considered was not presented in the case last cited.

Judgment and order reversed, and cause remanded for a new trial.

Perry v. Southern Pacific Railroad

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief