THE SETTING OF FIRES BY RAILROADS 111 



required to determine whether the act of the defendant was 

 the proximate cause of the loss suffered by the plaintiff. 1 



94. Statutory Liability of Railroad O perators for the 

 Setting of Fires. In many states there are special laws plac- 

 ing upon railroad operators the burden of proving due care by 

 making the setting of a fire by a locomotive prima facie 

 evidence of negligence 2 and in a number of states the law 

 makes the railroad operators absolutely liable for damages 

 resulting from fires caused by locomotives. 3 However, 

 courts will construe such statutes as making the railroad 

 operator liable only when there is not satisfactory proof of 

 due care, if the language of the law is capable of such con- 

 struction. 4 It has been held in North Dakota that the 

 presumption of negligence on the part of the railroad as 

 fixed in the statute is one of law, and that the determina- 

 tion of whether it has been overcome by evidence submitted 

 by the defendant lies within the province of the court and 



1. Aycr v. Starkey, 30 Conn. 304 (1861); Nail v. Taylor, 247 111. 5 (1910); Anna- 



polis Etc. K. K. v. Gantt, 39 Md. 115 (1873). Burlington & Mo. R. R. v. West- 

 over, 4 Neb. 268. 



2. See citations in railroad cases under notes: 7 p. 74; 2 p. 75; 3 p. 75 and 7 p. 77 



of this chapter, and also the following cases. : 



Colo. N. P. Ry. To. v. DeBush, 12 Colo. 294; D. & R. G. R. R. v. Haley, 10 Colo. 

 4; D. & R. G. R. R. v. Henderson, 10 Colo. 2. 



Conn. Burroughs v. Hottsatonic R. R. Co., 15 Conn. 124, 38 Am. Dec. 70 (1842). 

 On pages 70 to 79 of Vol. 3S, American Decisions, will be found a full dis- 

 cussion of this subject. 



111. Ry. v. Funk, 85 111. 4GO; Rwy. Co. v. Muthersbaugh, 71 111. 572. 



Kan. Ry. v. Eddy, 2 Kan. App. 291; Ry. v. Huitt, 1 Kan. App. 781; Ry. v. 

 Tubbs, 47 Kan. 630; Ry. v. Richardson, 47 Kan. 517; Ry. Co. v. Mer- 

 rill, 40 Kan. 404. Sec Mo. Etc. Ry. v. Mackey, 127 U. S. 205. 



Me. Pratt v. Ry., 42 Me. 579; cf. Chapman v. Ry. 37 Me. 92. 



Mich. Kisk v. Wabash Ry., H4 Mich. 248; Sec Oborn v. Ry. Co., Ill Mich 15. 



Minn. Hayes v. M. & S. I'. Ry. Co., 45 Minn. 17; Mahoney v. St Paul Etc. Ry. 

 Co., 35 Minn. 361, 29 N. W. 6; Karsen v. Mil. Etc. Ry. Co., 29 Minn. 

 12; 11 N. W. 122. 



Mo. Campbell v. Ry. Co., 121 Mo. 340: Coale v. Hannibal Etc. R.Co., 60 Mo. 

 227 (1875). 



N. D. Smith v. N. P. Ry. Co., 3 N. D. 17, 53 N. \V. 173. 



Ohio Martz v. Ry. Co., 12 O. C. Ct. 141; Trust Co. v. Ry., 89 Eel) 637, 12.. 

 O. F. D. 184. 



S. O. See Lipfield v. Ry. Co., 41 S. C. 185. 



V. S. Niskern v. Ry. Co., 22 Fed. 811. 



3. Ingersoll v. Stock bridge & P. R. R. Co., 8 Allen (Mass.) 438 (1864) ; Matthews V, 



Ry. Co., 121 Mo. 29S; Rowell v. Railroad, 57 N. II. 132 (1876). 

 ,SVr Greenfield v. R. R. Co., 49 N. \V. 95 (I'mler Iowa ("ode 1873, Sec. 

 1289.) 



4. Iowa Babcock v. Ry. Co., 62 la. 593; Libby v. Rwy. 52 la. 92; 81ooson v. Rwy., 



51 la. 294; Small v. (". R. I. & P. R. R. Co., 50 la. 338 Dec IS79. sec. 

 1280, code 2873.) 



Kan. A. T. & S. F. Ry. v, Dennis, 38 Kan. 424 (1888), 

 N. J. Hoff v. Ry., 16 Vroom201. 

 Ohio Railway v. Wahlers, 1 O, C, C (N. S.) 139, 14 O. C, D. 310. 



