IIEASOXABLE DESPATCH IN TRANSIT. 129 



every case, some animals requiring more care and manage- 

 ment than others, according to their nature, habits, and con- 

 ditions. A condition that a railway companj^ will not be 

 responsible " for loss . . . occasioned by kicking, plunging, 

 or restiveness of the animal," does not relieve them of the 

 duty of using reasonable care, and " the exception goes to 

 limit the liability, not the duty." It is the duty of the 

 carrier to do what he can to avoid all perils, including the 

 excepted perils.(a) 



Railway companies in the habit of carrying live animals 

 are under a certain responsibility, not only toward the OAvner 

 of the animals but also towards the public. If a dog or a 

 horse is known to be vicious and the company are informed of 

 this, the company are bound to take not only the usual but 

 extraordinary precautions to prevent it from escaping and so 

 doing injury to the public. (6) 



102. Of Reasonable Despatch in Transit. — In the absence 

 of special agreement there is no implied contract on the part 

 of a railway company to deliver with punctuality ; but the 

 contract is to deliver within a reasonable time, having 

 regard to all the circumstances ; and railway companies 

 are not responsible for the consequences of delay arising 

 from causes beyond their control, and are justified in incurr- 

 ing delay if it be necessary to secure safe carriage, (c) The 

 ordinary course of the journey which is professed by the com- 

 pany to be their route must be observed ; {(I) and where delay 

 is occasioned by causes beyond the control of the company, 

 as — e.g., by a snowstorm, they are not bound to use extra- 

 ordinary effort, or incur extra expense, in order to surmount 

 such an obstruction, (e) A railway company, however, must 



(a) Blackburn and Liisb, J.J., in GUI v. M. S. <L- L. Ry. Co. 1873, L.R. 8 Q.B. 186. 

 {h) Per Lord Inglis in Gray v. N. B. Ry. Co., 1890, 18 R. 76, 77. 

 (c) Taylor v. G. N. Ry. Co., 1866, L.R. 1 C.P. 385 ; Hales v. L. cO N.-W. Ry. 

 Co., 1863, 32 L.J., Q.B. 292 ; Myers v. L. A S.-W. Ry. Co., 18G9, L.R. 5 C.P. 3. 

 (rf) Blackburn, J., in IlaJcs, cit. ; Johnson \. Midland Ry. Co., 1849, 4 E.\. 367. 

 (e) Briddon v. G. N. Ry. Co., 1858, 28 L.J., E.k. 51. 



K 



