Texas & Pacific R. Co. v. Rosborough

Background

A railway company (incorporated under an act of Congress) was sued for the value of cotton destroyed by fire alleged to have started from sparks and cinders from a passing locomotive. The company denied negligence, said it used proper spark arresters in good repair, and argued the cotton had been stored without its consent on an open platform that extended over its right of way where about twenty engines passed daily. The railway presented evidence that engines were properly equipped. In rebuttal, a witness testified that he saw engines emit large cinders within a few days after the accident, and the company objected to that testimony.

Reasoning

Because the company’s only federal connection was its incorporation under a congressional act, the Court limited review to whether there was plain error. The Court held the rebuttal testimony was not improper given the pleadings and earlier witnesses. It also rejected the company’s claim that the jury should have been instructed that lack of the railway’s consent to the storage would eliminate liability, noting the platform’s long continued use and the trial court’s clear instructions on contributory negligence. Other assigned errors were found insubstantial.

Real world impact

The ruling affirms that property owners can recover for fire damage caused by sparks from trains even when goods were stored on a platform near the tracks. Railways cannot automatically escape liability simply because the property was stored without their consent, especially where the platform had long use. The case shows courts may admit eyewitness testimony about engines emitting cinders as relevant rebuttal evidence.