Kansas Pacific Railway Co. v. Brady
17 Kan. 380 (1877)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A property owner has a duty to exercise the degree of diligence that an ordinarily prudent person would under like circumstances to protect their property from foreseeable dangers, and a failure to do so may constitute contributory negligence, which is a question of fact for a jury to decide.
Facts:
- John Brady and David F. Easton owned a haystack located on an open prairie approximately one-and-a-half to two miles from the Kansas Pacific Railway Company's tracks.
- The prairie land between the tracks and the haystack was covered with dry grass.
- On a dry and very windy day, fire escaped from one of the railway's locomotive engines.
- The fire spread across the prairie and consumed the plaintiffs' haystack and a surrounding fence.
- The plaintiffs knew their property was in danger from fire, as it was common for the entire country in that vicinity to be burned over each season.
- The plaintiffs had plowed partially around the haystack to create a firebreak but did not complete the plowing all the way around it.
- The fire communicated to the haystack over the portion of the ground that had not been plowed.
Procedural Posture:
- John Brady and David F. Easton sued the Kansas Pacific Railway Company in a trial court for damages resulting from alleged negligence.
- At trial, the court refused the defendant's request to submit the question of the plaintiffs' contributory negligence to the jury.
- The jury found in favor of the plaintiffs, Brady and Easton.
- The defendant, Kansas Pacific Railway Company, appealed the resulting judgment to the state's highest court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a property owner's failure to take reasonable precautions to protect their property from fire, such as plowing a complete firebreak around a haystack near a railroad, constitute evidence of contributory negligence that must be submitted to a jury?
Opinions:
Majority - Valentine, J.
Yes. A property owner's failure to take reasonable precautions constitutes evidence of contributory negligence that must be submitted to a jury. While a plaintiff is generally not bound to anticipate the negligence of others, this rule has exceptions. All persons are bound to exercise the degree of diligence to prevent injuries to their own property which a reasonably prudent person would exercise under like circumstances. Given that fires from railway engines are a known and foreseeable risk, property owners in the vicinity must make reasonable preparations, such as creating effective firebreaks. The defendant's negligence in allowing fire to escape was only harmful to the plaintiffs because of their own omission in failing to adequately protect their haystack. Therefore, the question of whether the plaintiffs' actions met the standard of a reasonably prudent person is a question of fact that should have been submitted to the jury.
Analysis:
This decision establishes that the doctrine of contributory negligence applies to property owners situated near a known hazard, tempering the general rule that one need not anticipate another's negligence. It imposes an affirmative duty on landowners to take reasonable, active steps to mitigate foreseeable risks to their own property. This shifts some of the burden of risk-prevention from the party creating the hazard (the railroad) to the potential victim (the landowner). The case solidifies that what constitutes 'reasonable care' by a plaintiff is a factual question for a jury, not a legal one for the judge, whenever there is evidence suggesting the plaintiff failed to protect themselves.
