119 Wis. 398 | Wis. | 1903
Counsel for the defendant contend that the complaint fails to state a cause of action because it does' not specifically allege any negligence of the defendant in operating the train or in the construction of the cars or the track or otherwise. It does allege that the defendant was only authorized to use its tracks and railway for transporting passengers. Had the injury resulted from the use of such passenger cars, there might have been some force in the objection. Chicago & E. I. R. Co. v. Loeb, 118 Ill. 203, 8 N. E. 460; Randle v. Pacific R. R. 65 Mo. 325. But the gravamen of the complaint is that the plaintiff was injured by reason of the defendant running freight cars upon its tracks without authority and in violation of law. The question whether an indictment would lie at common law against a corporation for a misfeasance was answered in the affirmative by the Queen’s Bench many years ago. Queen v. G. N. of E. R. Co. 9 Q. B. 315, 325. In that case it was said by Lord Denman, C. J., that “a corporation . . . may be guilty as a body corporate of commanding acts to be done to the nuisance of the community at large.” Id. 326. Thus, it has been held in Massachusetts that “a railroad laid out over and along a highway in such a manner as to obstruct it, without express statute authority or necessary implication, is liable to indictment as a nuisance.” Comm. v. O. C. & F. R. R. Co. 14 Gray, 93. See, also, State v. T. & B. R. Co. 57 Vt. 144; Evans v. C., St. P., M. & O. R. Co. 86 Wis. 597, 603, 57 N. W. 354. So it is well settled that if an individual, without fault on his part, suffers special damage by any unlawful
“for personal injuries sustained by a person by reason of any nuisance in a highway, or injuries thereby inflicted upon his team or property, the person creating the nuisance, as well as the person maintaining it, is always liable in a civil action, if the person injured was in the exercise of ordinary care when the injury was inflicted; and no degree of care on the part of the person erecting or maintaining the nuisance will exempt him from liability.” 2 Wood, ETuisances (3d ed.) § 703.
The theory is that, the act being wrongful, the party doing it is answerable for all the consequences that flow therefrom to a person who is not chargeable with negligence by reason of which the injury is inflicted. Id. The allegations of the
By the Gourt. — The order of the circuit court is affirmed.