Edgerton v. Southern Railway Co.

Per Curiam. The evidence for plaintiff tended to show: (a) That twenty-four mules were delivered at the National Stock Yards, Illinois, to the defendant carrier in good condition, and at the time of delivery said animals were quiet, gentle mules. (b) The car in which the mules were shipped, was carefully inspected before the movement began and was found to be in good condition and free from any and all defects that might cause injury. (e) When the car arrived at Goldsboro, N. C., the point of destination, several slats were broken, several were out, and there were cracks about five inches wide. (d) At the time of delivery of the mules at destination four mules were bruised, one skinned and two sick. One of the sick mules died a few hours after delivery. Upon appropriate issues arising upon the pleadings the trial judge instructed the jury in part as follows: “I charge you that if you find by the greater weight of the testimony that upon the arrival of the stock in Goldsboro that they were in a damaged condition and that such damaged condition was not due to natural causes or from innate and vicious nature of the animals, then I instruct you, if you find that to be true, that would be evidence against the Southern Eailway from which you might or might not find that such condition of the stock was due to the negligence of the defendant. The rule being that when stock in a damaged condition, not caused by natural causes, or by the innate or vicious nature of the stock, is found in the possession of the carrier, the presumption is that the carrier in whose possession the stock is found in such damaged condition, and not due to the natural causes or innate vicious nature of the stock, is responsible for the injury sustained. Tbat is, not that the burden is shifted from plaintiff to the defendant, but the finding of the stock in a damaged condition, not due to natural causes or innate viciousness of the animals, if found in the possession of the carrier, is enough evidence to go to the jury, from which evidence the jury may or may not find by the greater weight of evidence that the damage to the stock was caused by the negligence of the carrier in whose possession it is found.” *284 This instruction correctly applies tbe rule of liability declared in Farming Co. v. R. R., 189 N. C., 63, 126 S. E., 167, and Davis Livestock Co. v. Davis, 188 N. C., 220, 124 S. E., 157, and other cases of similar import. While there is a divergence of judicial opinion upon the rules-of liability in such eases in other jurisdictions, this Court has adhered to the principle contained in the instruction of the trial judge. No error.