View this case and other resources at:
Brief Fact Summary. The Respondent, Reid (Respondent), brought an action to recover damages for the killing of certain cattle by the trains of the Appellant, San Pedro, Los Angeles & Salt Lake Railroad (Appellant).
Synopsis of Rule of Law. Where the undisputed evidence of the plaintiff, from which the existence of an essential fact is sought to be inferred, points with equal force to two things, one of which renders the defendant liable and the other not, the plaintiff must fail.
Issue. Whether the court should affirm a verdict against a defendant where the evidence supports two possibilities, one of which would impose liability on the defendant, while the second would not.
Held. No. The trial court should have directed a verdict for Appellant. Where the undisputed evidence of the plaintiff, from which the existence of an essential fact is sought to be inferred, points with equal force to two things, one of which renders the defendant liable and the other not, the plaintiff must fail. In order for Respondent to recover, it was essential for her to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the cow entered upon the right of way through the broken down fence.
Discussion. At issue here is what degree of inference the court will permit a jury to make. Essentially, when the court says that the evidence does not make it more likely than not that the defendant is liable (instead only making it as likely as not that a defendant is liable), then a verdict against a defendant cannot stand.