Vicksburg & Meridian Railroad v. Hamilton

Mississippi Supreme Court
Vicksburg & Meridian Railroad v. Hamilton, 62 Miss. 503 (Miss. 1885)
Campbell

Vicksburg & Meridian Railroad v. Hamilton

Opinion of the Court

Campbell, C. J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The evidence shows that the mule was killed by the running of a locomotive or cars of the appellant, and there is nothing to show the circumstances of the killing. The presumption of the want of reasonable skill and care on the part of the servants of the appellant in reference to the injury must therefore prevail. Code, § 1059. This statute devolves on the railroad company, whose locomotives or cars in running inflict injury, to exculpate itself from blame by showing that the circumstances under which the injury was done were such as to free it from liability. It cannot rely on presumptions or conjectures. It must show the facts attending the injury and exonerate itself. The facts did not appear in this case, and for all that was shown the mule may have been unnecessarily and improperly killed. The appellant must suffer the consequences of its failure to show the circumstances.

Affirmed.

Reference

Full Case Name
Vicksburg and Meridian Railroad Company v. W. S. Hamilton
Cited By
1 case
Status
Published
Syllabus
Raix-road Company. Action against for injury. Presumption of negligence. Section 1059, Code 1880. Section 1059 of the Code of 1880 provides that, “In all actions against railroad companies for damages done lo persons or property, proof of injury inflicted by the running of the locomotive or cars of such company shall he primd facie evidence of the want of reasonable skill and care on the part of the servants of such company in reference to such injury.” Where, in such action, the plaintiff has proven the killing of his mule by the running of the defendant’s locomotive and train, it devolves upon the defendant to show the circumstances attending the killing (unless the same appear by the plaintiff’s evidence) in order to exculpate itself from blame, and if it fail to do so, the presumption must prevail, under the statute quoted, that the injury was the result of negligence on the part of defendant’s servants.