66-295. Liability regardless of negligence. Every railway company or corporation in this state, and every assignee or lessee of such company or corporation, shall be liable to pay the owner the full value of each and every animal killed, and all damages to each and every animal wounded by the engine or cars on such railway, or in any other manner whatever in operating such railway, irrespective of the fact as to whether such killing or wounding was caused by the negligence of such railway company or corporation, or the assignee or lessee thereof, or not.
History: L. 1874, ch. 94, ยง 1; March 4; R.S. 1923, 66-295.
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. Act applies to receivers operating railway under appointment of court. Rouse v. Redinger, 1 Kan. App. 355, 41 P. 433.
2. Running engines, etc., in carrying material, deemed operation of road. C.K. & W. Rld. Co. v. Totten, 1 Kan. App. 558, 42 P. 269.
3. Party must bring himself clearly within terms of act. C.K. & W. Rld. Co. v. Totten, 1 Kan. App. 558, 42 P. 269.
4. Demand can only be proven by written demand itself. A.T. & S.F. Rld. Co. v. Bartlett, 2 Kan. App. 167, 168, 172, 43 P. 284.
5. Sufficiency of bill of particulars under this act considered. A.T. & S.F. Rld. Co. v. Bartlett, 2 Kan. App. 167, 168, 172, 43 P. 284.
6. Judgment for ninety-five dollars; attorney's fees twenty-five dollars; no appeal. S.L. & W. Rly. Co. v. Conger, 2 Kan. App. 287, 288, 42 P. 408.
7. Where fence impracticable, barrier must be constructed near by. C.R.I. & P. Rly. Co. v. Green, 4 Kan. App. 133, 135, 137, 46 P. 200.
8. Railroad not absolved from duty to comply with law; conditions. C.R.I. & P. Rly. Co. v. Green, 4 Kan. App. 133, 135, 137, 46 P. 200.
9. Evidence, instructions, and other procedure under this act considered. Railway Co. v. Pfrang, 7 Kan. App. 1, 2, 51 P. 911.
10. Evidence of market value of stock killed considered. Clark v. Ford, 7 Kan. App. 332, 333, 51 P. 938.
11. Attorney's fee allowed is part of amount in controversy. Clark v. Ford, 7 Kan. App. 332, 333, 51 P. 938.
12. Written demand need not specify particular breach of statutory duty. Railway Co. v. Hart, 7 Kan. App. 550, 51 P. 933.
13. Oral statement to agent concerning pay for animal; held demand. Railway Co. v. Kinman, 9 Kan. App. 633, 58 P. 1037.
14. Limitation of actions on proceeding brought under this act considered. Railway Co. v. Kinman, 9 Kan. App. 633, 58 P. 1037.
15. Gate in railroad fence held defective. Railway Co. v. Kinman, 9 Kan. App. 633, 58 P. 1037.
16. State has power to require fencing of railroad tracks. K.P. Rly. Co. v. Mower, 16 Kan. 573, 574.
17. Charter powers of railroad not vested right; police power. K.P. Rly. Co. v. Mower, 16 Kan. 573, 574.
18. Act held constitutional and valid. K.P. Rly. Co. v. Mower, 16 Kan. 573, 574; A. & N. Rld. Co. v. Harper, 19 Kan. 529.
19. Sufficiency of pleadings in court below; consideration on appeal. K.P. Rly. Co. v. Yanz, 16 Kan. 583, 584.
20. Cattle upon track where road could be fenced; negligence; damages. Hopkins, Warden, v. K.P. Rly. Co., 18 Kan. 462, 464. Limited: Cent. Branch Rld. Co. v. Lea, 20 Kan. 353, 365.
21. Purpose of act to obviate trial of negligence of owner. Hopkins, Warden, v. K.P. Rly Co., 18 Kan. 462, 464. Limited: Cent. Branch Rld. Co. v. Lea, 20 Kan. 353, 365.
22. Purpose and scope of law considered; liability of company. Hopkins, Warden, v. K.P. Rly. Co., 18 Kan. 462. Limited: Cent. Branch Rld. Co. v. Lea, 20 Kan. 353, 365.
23. Demand made upon general superintendent of railway company is sufficient. Central Branch Rld. Co. v. Ingram, 20 Kan. 66, 69.
24. Herd law; parties equally at fault; railroad not liable. Cent. Branch Rld. Co. v. Lea, 20 Kan. 353, 359.
25. Trust company operating a railroad deemed a "railway corporation." Union Trust Co. v. Kendall, 20 Kan. 515.
26. Mare injured upon bridge; railroad held liable hereunder. A.T. & S.F. Rld. Co. v. Jones, 20 Kan. 527.
27. Injuries done in removing animals from railroad bridge; damages. A.T. & Santa Fe Rld. Co. v. Edwards, 20 Kan. 531.
28. Judgment of justice reversed; allowance of attorney's fees held proper. Gulf Rld. Co. v. Shirley, 20 Kan. 660, 661.
29. When company not required to maintain hog-tight fence. A.T. & S.F. Rld. Co., v. Yates, 21 Kan. 613, 620, 621.
30. Petition must show stock killed in county where suit commenced. Hadley v. Central Branch U.P.R. Co., 22 Kan. 359, 362.
31. Sufficiency of demand upon railroad considered. C.B.U.P. Rld. Co. v. Butman, 22 Kan. 639, 641.
32. Statements made by agent when notice served admissible in evidence. C.B.U.P. Rld. Co. v. Butman, 22 Kan. 639, 641.
33. Proof of service of demand by incompetent evidence; when permitted. C.B.U.P. Rld. Co. v. Butman, 22 Kan. 639, 641.
34. Counterclaim for damages done to defendant; practice. C.B.U.P. Rld. Co. v. Walters, 24 Kan. 504.
35. Stock killed while company in hand of receivers; company liable. K.P. Rly. Co. v. Wood, 24 Kan. 619, 622, 623.
36. Sufficiency of allegation and proof concerning lack of fence considered. K.C.L. & S. Rld. Co. v. Neville, 25 Kan. 632, 633.
37. Amendment of bill of particulars to show demand; not error. Mo. P. Rly. Co. v. Piper, 26 Kan. 58, 59.
38. Allegation concerning want of sufficient fence held sufficient. Mo. P. Rly. Co. v. Piper, 26 Kan. 58, 59.
39. Stock straying upon tracks from unfenced crossings; company not liable. Mo. P. Rld. Co. v. Leggett, 27 Kan. 323, 324. But see A. & N. Rld. Co. v. Cash, 27 Kan. 587.
40. Purpose and scope of act commented on; duty of company. Sherman, Adm'r, v. Anderson, 27 Kan. 333, 335.
41. Sufficiency of proof of killing of animals during night considered. U.P. Rly. Co. v. Harris, 28 Kan. 206, 210.
42. Company should protect end of fence with cattle guards. U.P. Rly. Co. v. Harris, 28 Kan. 206, 210.
43. Act held operative within military reservation. Chicago, R.I. & P. Ry. Co. v. McGlinn, 28 Kan. 274, 275. Affirmed: Chicago, Rock Island & P.R. Co. v. McGlinn, 114 U.S. 542, 5 S. Ct. 1005, 29 L.Ed. 270.
44. Allegations concerning failure to enclose railroad with fence considered. St. L. & S.F. Rly. Co. v. Dudgeon, 28 Kan. 283.
45. Animal on land of another by permission; company held liable. St. L. & S.F. Rly. Co. v. Dudgeon, 28 Kan. 283.
46. Railroad not liable for killing of stock at public crossing. A.T. & S.F. Rld. Co. v. Griffis, 28 Kan. 539.
47. Amendment of bill of particulars on appeal to show lack of fence. K.C. Ft. S. & G. Rld. Co., v. Hays, 29 Kan. 193.
48. Instructions concerning sufficiency of fence considered. K.C. Ft. S. & G. Rld. Co. v. Hays, 31 Kan. 177, 178, 1 P. 766.
49. Applicability of other fence law sections as to sufficiency considered. K.C. Ft. S. & G. Rld. Co. v. Hays, 31 Kan. 177, 178, 1 P. 766.
50. Company liable even though herd law in effect. A.T. & S.F. Rld. Co. v. Riggs, 31 Kan. 622, 623, 624, 3 P. 305.
51. Effect where herd law enforced in the county. A. T. & S. F. Rld. Co. v. Riggs, 31 Kan. 622, 623, 624, 3 P. 305.
52. Requirements as to fencing of station grounds considered. A.T. & S.F. Rld. Co. v. Shaft, 33 Kan. 521, 526, 529, 6 P. 908.
53. Railroad must have tracks enclosed with good and lawful fence. A.T. & S.F. Rld. Co. v. Shaft, 33 Kan. 521, 526, 529, 6 P. 908.
54. Paramount interest of public only excuse for not fencing railroad. A.T. & S.F. Rld. Co. v. Shaft, 33 Kan. 521, 526, 529, 6 P. 908.
55. Enclosing of railroad requires cattle guards at crossings. A. T. & S. F. Rld. Co. v. Shaft, 33 Kan. 521, 526, 529, 6 P. 908.
56. Railroad may be liable although herd law in effect. Mo. Pac. Rly. Co. v. Bradshaw, 33 Kan. 533, 6 P. 917.
57. Animals such that fence would be no protection; liability considered. Mo. Pac. Rly. Co. v. Bradshaw, 33 Kan. 533, 6 P. 917.
58. Unfenced railway through farm; animals straying upon tracks; railroad liable. Mo. Pac. Rly. Co. v. Bradshaw, 33 Kan. 533, 6 P. 917.
59. No recovery had where owner voluntarily exposes animals to danger. Mo. Pac. Rly. Co. v. Roads, 33 Kan. 640, 7 P. 213.
60. Act imposes obligation upon railroad to fence tracks. Mo. Pac. Rly. Co. v. Roads, 33 Kan. 640, 7 P. 213.
61. Act in nature of police regulation for benefit of public. Mo. Pac. Rly. Co. v. Roads, 33 Kan. 640, 7 P. 213.
62. Animals in fenced field, killed on unfenced railroad; damages recoverable. A.T. & S.F. Rld. Co. v. Gabbert, 34 Kan. 132, 136, 8 P. 218.
63. Interest does not accrue on value of animal before trial. A.T. & S.F. Rld. Co. v. Gabbert, 34 Kan. 132, 136, 8 P. 218.
64. Railroad liable when animal breaks enclosure and strays upon track. Mo. Pac. Rly. Co. v. Johnston, 35 Kan. 58, 61, 10 P. 103.
65. When animals are considered "running at large." Mo. Pac. Rly. Co. v. Johnston, 35 Kan. 58, 61, 10 P. 103.
66. Proof that defendant was corporation not necessary when defendant appeals. K.C.L. & S.K. Rly. Co. v. Bolson, 36 Kan. 534, 536, 14 P. 5.
67. Facts held not sufficient to prove negligence of employee. K.C.L. & S.K. Rly. Co. v. Bolson, 36 Kan. 534, 536, 14 P. 5.
68. Sufficiency of evidence; demurrer to evidence; verdict sustained. K.C. Ft. S. & G. Rld. Co. v. Foster, 39 Kan. 329, 330, 18 P. 285.
69. Railroad is liable for all damages to stock; eminent domain. L. & W. Rld. Co. v. Ross, 40 Kan. 598, 609, 20 P. 197.
70. Pleading and proof necessary to show venue of action. K.C. Ft. S. & G. Rld. Co. v. Burge, 40 Kan. 734, 19 P. 791; K.C. Ft. S. & G. Rld. Co. v. Burge, 40 Kan. 736, 21 P. 589.
71. Animal frightened by whistle; injured by running into fence; company liable. Mo. Pac. Rly. Co. v. Gill, 49 Kan. 441, 30 P. 414.
72. Mare and colt killed; separate action allowed for each animal. Mo. Pac. Rly. Co. v. Scammon, 41 Kan. 521, 21 P. 590.
73. Railroad may show stock killed at crossing used by public. Mo. Pac. Rly. Co. v. Kocher, 46 Kan. 272, 26 P. 731.
74. Crossing need not be regularly laid out by county authorities. Mo. Pac. Rly. Co. v. Kocher, 46 Kan. 272, 26 P. 731.
75. Owner may claim damages only after proper demand made. St. L. & S.F. Rly. Co. v. Kinman, 49 Kan. 627, 629, 31 P. 126.
76. Proof of fact of agency of person served considered. St. L. & S.F. Rly. Co. v. Kinman, 49 Kan. 627, 629, 31 P. 126.
77. Declarations of supposed agent held not proof of agency. St. L. & S.F. Rly. Co. v. Kinman, 49 Kan. 627, 629, 31 P. 126.
78. Highway near railroad track; no excuse for lack of fence. Mo. Pac. Rly. Co. v. Eckel, 49 Kan. 794, 798, 31 P. 693.
79. Railroad not fenced; stock frightened and injured; railroad liable. Mo. Pac. Rly. Co. v. Eckel, 49 Kan. 794, 798, 31 P. 693.
80. Second action begun after three years; action barred by statute. Becker v. Railway Co., 70 Kan. 193, 78 P. 408.
81. District courts take judicial notice of location of towns, etc. Railway Co. v. Paxton, 75 Kan. 197, 199, 88 P. 1082.
82. Contributory negligence no defense where road unfenced or fence defective. Railway Co. v. Paxton, 75 Kan. 197, 199, 88 P. 1082.
83. Failure of railroad to maintain fence must be affirmatively shown. Railroad Co. v. Hoff, 76 Kan. 506, 508, 92 P. 539.
84. Sufficiency of bill of particulars in action for damages. Railroad Co. v. Hoff, 76 Kan. 506, 508, 92 P. 539.
85. Duty of railroad to construct and maintain fence considered. Stanley v. Railway Co., 88 Kan. 84, 86, 127 P. 620.
86. Liability of company when cattle guards not maintained; act considered. Wood v. Railroad Co., 88 Kan. 477, 479, 129 P. 193.
87. Contract to maintain open crossing; not contrary to public policy. Atkinson v. Railway Co., 95 Kan. 828, 830, 831, 149 P. 430.
88. When railroad required to build hog-tight fence considered. Abbey v. Railway Co., 108 Kan. 85, 87, 194 P. 190.
89. Recovery under stock law or under fence law, or both. Abbey v. Railway Co., 108 Kan. 85, 87, 194 P. 190.
90. Proper cattle guards defined as those preventing passing of stock. Abbey v. Railway Co., 108 Kan. 88, 90, 194 P. 191.
91. Duty of owner not to permit stock at large considered. Abbey v. Railway Co., 108 Kan. 88, 89, 90, 194 P. 191.
92. Fence covered with snow; insufficient barrier; railroad liable. Toothaker v. Railroad Co., 112 Kan. 304, 308, 210 P. 1110.
93. Stock injured while railroad under government control; substitution of parties. Toothaker v. Railroad Co., 112 Kan. 304, 308, 210 P. 1110.
94. Plaintiff need not prove proximate cause where statutory gate not maintained. Roman v. St. Louis-S.F. Rly. Co., 120 Kan. 585, 589, 245 P. 115.
95. Owner of cattle need not own land through which railway passes. Kirby v. Missouri-K.-T. Rld. Co., 123 Kan. 353, 254 P. 1036.
96. Liability of railroad company where injury occurred on military reservation discussed in election contest case. (Dissenting opinion.) Herken v. Glynn, 151 Kan. 855, 876, 101 P.2d 946.
97. Mentioned in dissenting opinion discussing laws relating to loose stock. Abbott v. Howard, 169 Kan. 305, 318, 219 P.2d 696.
98. Waiver by landowner of company's duty under 66-299 waives liability hereunder. Atkinson v. Missouri Pacific Rld. Co., 182 Kan. 389, 391, 392, 394, 320 P.2d 850.
99. Authority of state on Fort Leavenworth military reservation considered. Chicago, Rock Island & P.R. Co. v. McGlinn, 114 U.S. 542, 5 S. Ct. 1005, 29 L.Ed. 270.
100. State law continued in effect on military reservation until abrogated. Chicago, Rock Island & P.R. Co. v. McGlinn, 114 U.S. 542, 5 S. Ct. 1005, 29 L.Ed. 270.
|
|