Reports of Cases Decided in the Supreme Court of the State of Oregon (Volume 19)
Paperback
Currently unavailable to order
ISBN10: 1151006041
ISBN13: 9781151006042
Publisher: General Books
Pages: 448
Weight: 1.44
Height: 0.99 Width: 9.01 Depth: 5.98
Language: English
ISBN13: 9781151006042
Publisher: General Books
Pages: 448
Weight: 1.44
Height: 0.99 Width: 9.01 Depth: 5.98
Language: English
This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1891 Excerpt: ...the equal protection of the laws, is supposed to lie in discriminating against the defendant by imposing a liability where no duty is required by law, or without any act of negligence on its part. The contention is, that the act of 1887 imposes no duty upon the defendant to fence its track, yet it declares that the company shall make reparation for the killing of stock in the prosecution of its lawful business, without any fault or negligence on its part, or the violation of any duty imposed by law. As the defendant has the lawful right in a lawful way to run its trains, in order to hold it liable for the value of stock killed caused by the running of its trains, there must be some violation of a duty imposed by law, or some act of YiT Ok.--2U Opinion of the Court--Lord, J. negligence on its part. And, it would follow, unless the act imposes some duty, the violation of which renders the defendant liable, it would be open to the objection that it subjects the defendant and its business to a liability where no wrong has been committed, or duty unperformed, thereby depriving it of its property and the equal protection of the law afforded toothers. That the legislature, in the exercise of the police power of the State, may require all railroads to fence their track, and for neglect or failure to perform this duty, render them liable for whatever injury is done, or for double the value of the stock killed, and that such legislation is not obnoxious to the clause of the constitution in question, has been frequently decided and cannot be questioned. The danger attending the running of steam railway cars and liability to serious injury, or loss of life of its passengers by collision with animals straying upon its track where allowed to roam at large, makes it a req...
