99 Va. 357 | Va. | 1901
delivered the opinion of the court.
This action was brought to recover damages for the destruction of a mill and contents, alleged to have been caused by fire
All the evidence adduced on the first trial was duly incorporated in a proper bill of exceptions, and the sole question to be determined is, whether or not the Circuit Court erred in setting' aside the first verdict 'and granting a new trial.
In this case the burden is upon the plaintiff to show that the fire arose, as alleged, from sparks emitted by the engine in question. Where the origin of the fire is thus fixed upon the railroad company, it is presumptively chargeable with negligence, and must assume the burden of proving that it had observed every reasonable precaution, and 'availed itself of the best mechanical contrivances and inventions in known practical use to prevent the burning of property by the escape of fire. When this has been done, the railroad company has performed its duty, and cannot be held liable. Brighthope R. R. Co. v. Rogers, 76 Va. 451; Patteson v. C. & O. R. R. Co., 94 Va. 16; Kimbal v. Borden, 97 Va. 472.
It is by no means clear that the fire which destroyed the plaintiff’s mill had its origin in sparks thrown from the engine of the defendant. Without passing, however, upon that question, but assuming that the jury were justified in concluding that the fire resulted from that cause, we are of opinion that the defendant has borne the burden thus imposed upon it, and has brought itself within the rule relieving it from liability by showing that its engine was equipped with the most approved spark arrester; that the same was in proper repair; and that the engine was operated with reasonable care and skill by competent employees.
■ It appears that about two weeks before the fire the engine in question was returned to the defendant from the Baldwin Loco
Without prolonging this opinion with further recital of the evidence, it is sufficient to say that it satisfactorily appears that the railroad company had discharged its duty in the matter of proper machinery and appliances, and therefore could not be held responsible for the alleged fire.
Tor these reasons, the judgment of the Circuit Court must be affirmed. • ' Affirmed.