## Facts

- A landowner sued a railroad for damages allegedly caused by prairie fires started by sparks from the railroad’s locomotive on October 12, 1871.
- Sparks from a single locomotive allegedly ignited two separate fires on lands owned by others, not on the plaintiff’s land.
- The two fires spread across multiple properties, ultimately joined, and then reached the plaintiff’s farm about 3.5–4 miles from the ignition points.
- The fire destroyed or damaged the plaintiff’s property, including livestock (a mare and colt), crops (corn, oats, wheat), hay, and certain structures and fences.
- The plaintiff claimed negligence based on the engine’s condition and/or its operation by the railroad’s employees.
- At trial, the plaintiff introduced evidence that other locomotives of the same railroad had traveled the same stretch earlier in the season under similar wind and weather conditions without starting fires, while this locomotive did.
- A jury found for the plaintiff, and the trial court approved the verdict.

## Issues

1. Whether evidence that other engines passed the same place under similar conditions without starting fires was admissible and sufficient circumstantial evidence of negligence as to the particular engine that did start fires.
2. Whether admissibility required proof that prior trips occurred under exactly identical conditions of wind, weather, and related circumstances.
3. Whether a series of questions and answers is inadmissible because individual answers, viewed alone, do not directly prove an ultimate fact in issue.
4. Whether damages occurring miles away after separate fires spread and merged were too remote to be legally attributable to the railroad’s alleged negligence.
5. Whether it was reversible error to let the jury consider testimony later revealed on cross-examination to come from an incompetent witness where no timely objection, motion to strike, or limiting instruction was requested.
6. Whether destruction of property with no “actual market value” can support a damages award.

## Decision

- The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the judgment for the plaintiff.
- The court held that comparative evidence about other engines not starting fires under similar conditions was admissible and constituted some proof of negligence regarding the engine that did.
- The court held that exact identity of conditions was not required for admissibility; differences went to weight rather than exclusion.
- The court held that a line of questioning is proper where the answers, taken together, are competent and tend to prove an issue, even if individual answers are not independently conclusive.
- The court held that the damage was not too remote, even though the fires began on other lands, traveled several miles, crossed multiple properties, and merged before reaching the plaintiff.
- The court held that any complaint about later-discovered witness incompetence was waived absent timely objection, a motion to strike, or a requested instruction.
- The court held that property may have compensable value even without an actual market value.

## Legal Principles

- Evidence that a particular instrumentality caused a harmful event, combined with evidence that comparable instrumentalities operated under substantially similar conditions without causing harm, can support an inference of negligent condition or negligent operation.
- Substantial similarity, not exact identity, is sufficient for admission of comparative-conditions evidence; dissimilarities generally affect credibility and weight.
- Trial courts may allow a series of questions where the answers collectively tend to prove an issue; evidentiary competence is not defeated because each discrete answer is not independently decisive.
- Fire damage is not necessarily too remote where the spread is a natural and continuous consequence of the initial ignition, even when the fire travels miles, crosses intervening properties, and merges with another fire started by the same act.
- Evidentiary error based on witness incompetency is typically not preserved for appeal without timely objection and appropriate motions or requested instructions.
- Damages may be awarded for destruction of property that lacks an established market price if the property has ascertainable value.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a verdict holding the railroad responsible for prairie-fire losses, permitting circumstantial proof of negligence through substantially similar comparative engine evidence, treating multi-mile fire spread and merger as not too remote for liability, enforcing waiver rules for unpreserved evidentiary objections, and allowing recovery for property with ascertainable value even without a market value.


Atchison, T. & S. F. R.R. Co. v. Stanford, 12 Kan. 354 (Kan. 1874)