Hyperlawhypertext legal database France v. Erie Railway Co. 5 Thomp. & Cook 12

← Cases

France v. Erie Railway Co.

5 Thomp. & Cook 12 Court N.Y. Sup. Ct. English

Delivered by Gilbert, J.

Contents

Majority

p. 12
France v. Erie Railway Company.

Headnote

Highways—State may construct across Indian reservation—Railroad crossings- Negligence-evidence of.
Plaintiff’s horse was injured in consequence of a defect in a railway where it was crossed by a highway. The crossing was within the limits of an Indian reservation. Held, (I) (following O’Meara v. Commissioners of Allegany, 3 N. Y. Sup. 236), that the State had power to construct a highway across an Indian reservation ; (2) that the railway company was bound to keep the crossings o.f such highway in repair and was liable for an injury caused by neglect to do so, and (3) that a presumption of negligence arose from the defect and the fact that an injury was caused thereby.
Appeal by defendant from a judgment, in favor of plaintiff, of the Cattaraugus county court entered upon the verdict of a jury, and from an order denying a new trial. The action was brought in a justice’s court by Alonzo France to recover damages for an in
p. 13
jury sustained by the plaintiff’s horse at a highway crossing over defendant’s railway. The injury was in consequence of a defect in the planking between the rails, causing the horse to stumble. The crossing was upon a highway passing through the Cattaraugus Indian reservation. The justice gave judgment for plaintiff for $85, and an appeal was taken by defendant to the county court, and a new trial had before a jury which resulted in a verdict in favor of plaintiff for $80.
John Ganson, for appellant.
Defendant was not chargeable with negligence, unless it appeared that it had notice of the defect causing the injury. Laws 1850, chap. 140, § 28, subd. 5; Bellinger v. N. Y. Cent. R. R. Co., 23 N. Y. 42 ; Radcliff v. Mayor of Brooklyn, 4 id. 195, 200; Attorney-Gen. v. Hud. River R. R. Co., 1 Stockt. 526; Newark Plank R. Co. v. Elmer, id. 760; Selden v. Del. and Hud. Canal Co., 29 N. Y. 634 , 642; Mazetti v. N. Y. & Harlem R. R. Co., 3 E. D. Smith, 98; Murray v. N. Y. Cent. R. R. Co., 4 Keyes, 274, 278.
Defendant owed plaintiff no duty to keep the highway in repair upon the Indian reservation. Shearman & Redf. on Neglig., § 341, note; New York Indians, 5 Wall. 761 ; People v. Dibble, 16 N. Y. 203 ; S. C., 21 How. (U. S.) 361; Dole v. Irish, 2 Bar. 639; Fellows v. Lee, 5 Den. 628 ; Blacksmith v. Fellows, 7 N. Y. 401 ; Kansas Indians, 5 Wall. 737 .
Ansley & Vreeland, for respondent.

This action is for injury to a horse in consequence of defendant’s roadway being out of repair. Plaintiff was crossing the track where it intersects a highway in Salamanca, on the Cattaraugus Indian reservation.

The power of the' State to construct highways on Indian reservations is virtually affirmed in O’Meara v. Commissioners of Allegany, 3 N. Y. Sup. 236. The right of a railroad company to lay its tracks across a highway carries with it the obligation to keep them in repair, and if an injury happens by reason of its neglect of that duty it is liable. A presumption of negligence arises from the existence of a défect, and the fact that an injury was caused thereby. Wooster v. Forty-second St., etc., R. R. Co., 50 N. Y. 203 .

The judgment and order denying a new trial must be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Cases cited