Anderson v. Minneapolis St.P. & S.St. M. R.R. Co. Sup. Ct. Of Minn.,

146 Minn., 430, 179 N.W. 45 (1920).

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P alleged, that early in August 1918, sparks from one of D's locomotive engines set a fire on or near the right of way and that this fire spread until it finally reached P's land, where it destroyed some of his property. One of D's engines started a fire in a bog near the west side of Ps land, and it smoldered there until October 12, 1918, when it flared up and burned his property shortly before it was reached by one of the great fires which swept through northeastern Minnesota at the close of that day. D denied the allegation and claimed that P's land was burned from a fire of unknown origin, and by reason of extraordinary weather conditions which resulted in a huge conflagration. D proved that prior to October 12 fires were burning west and northwest of P and were swept by the wind towards P's premises. D did not show how such fires originated, neither did it clearly and certainly trace the destruction of P's property to them. The jury was instructed in part: 'If plaintiff's property was damaged by fire originally set by one of defendant's locomotives, then defendant became liable for such damage and was not released from such liability by anything that happened thereafter. If the plaintiff was burned out by some fire other than the bog fire, which other fire was not set by one of the defendant's engines, then, of course, the defendant is not liable. If the plaintiff was burned out by fire set by one of defendant's engines in combination with some other fire not set by any of its engines,' then it is liable. If you find that other fire or fires not set by one of the defendant's engines mingled with one that was set by one of the defendant's engines, there may be difficulty in determining whether you should find that the fire set by the engine was a material or substantial element in causing plaintiff's damage. If it was, the defendant is liable, otherwise it is not. 'If you find that bog fire was set by the defendant's engine and that some greater fire swept over it before it reached the plaintiff's land, then it will be for you to determine whether that bog fire was a material or substantial factor in causing plaintiff's damage. If it was defendant is liable. If it was not, defendant is not liable. If the bog fire was set by one of the defendant's engines, and if one of defendant's engines also set a fire or fires west of Kettle River, and those fires combined and burned over plaintiff's property, then the defendant is liable.' The jury returned into court on Sunday and asked whether the defendant would be liable if they should find that one of defendant's engines set a fire west of Kettle River and that on October 12 this fire was of sufficient magnitude to play an important part in any consolidation of fires that may have occurred between it and other fires coming from the west and northwest, and the consolidated fires passed over plaintiff's land and did the damage. The court answered that it would be liable. The jury returned a verdict for P and D appealed.