ACCIDENTAL INJURIES TO TRESPASSING ANIMALS. 153 



defendants' land, it was held that the latter were not liable, 

 their failure to fence being a matter that concerned only the 

 adjoining land-owner.^'''® 



The modification to this rule where the common law is de- 

 parted from and animals allowed by statute to run at large, 

 is thus stated in an Alabama case : "Where the general law of 

 this State prevails, a person's right to the use of his land is, 

 in a measure, aflfected by the recognized right of others to al- 

 low their stock to run at large. This latter right would be 

 practically destroyed if upon the lands not inclosed by a law- 

 ful fence erections or excavations could, with impunity, be so 

 made that animals straying thereon would be exposed to in- 

 jury or destruction. It seems plain, under our law, that the 

 land-owner has no right to expose straying stock to such 

 perils. He may be under no duty to guard them from the 

 dangers to which they may be exposed in consequence of the 

 natural features of the land, such as ditches, holes, decayed 

 trees liable to fall, etc. Nor would he be liable for an injury 

 to an animal caused by a fence built in the usual way. If, 

 however, a fence or other erection is so negligently main- 

 tained on the land as to be in effect a trap to passing animals ; 

 if the injury to animals is the natural or probable consequence 

 of the act and such as any prudent man may have foreseen, 

 then, in the event of such injury, the land-owner is liable in 

 damages." ^^^ 



48. Injuries from Barbed-Wire Fences — It was held in a 

 Scotch case that a proprietor of lands bordering on a public 

 road is not entitled to erect a barbed-wire fence along the 

 road, where such fence is dangerous to persons or beasts us- 

 ing the road.^*^ But in a Canadian case, where a colt fol- 

 lowing its dam led by the plaintiff's servant ran against a 

 barbed-wire fence on a country road and received injuries 



'™ Ryan v. Rochester & S. R. Co., 9 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 453- 



"" Hurd V. Lacy, 93 Ala. 427, 429. 



"' Elgin Co. Road Trustees v. Innes, 14 Rettie (So. Ct. Sess.) 48. 



