472 CARRIERS OF ANIMALS. 



do not include negligence, the carrier will not be released, 

 and, therefore, where he was released from liability for injuries 

 to sheep "caused by burning of hay, straw, or other material 

 used for feeding said animals, or otherwise," and, owing to 

 the negligence of the carrier in not supplying the train with 

 proper appliances for putting out a fire, a number of animals 

 were burned to death, the defendant was held liable.°^ The 

 weight of authority is, however, against this rule allowing 

 the carrier to limit its liability for negligence. ^^ 



Under the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 17 and 18 Vict, 

 c. 31, s. 7, conditions may be enforced that are judged to 

 be "just and reasonable" and the late English decisions de- 

 pend principally upon the meaning attached to this statutory 

 phrase. Some examples are accordingly cited here. 



It is not unreasonable to limit the value of the animals to 

 a certain amount if they are carried at a cheaper rate under 

 which the shipper assumes all risks. ^^ And a condition that 

 the company should be free from all loss or damage to cattle 

 in loading or unloading from sufifocation, or from being 

 trampled on, bruised, or otherwise injured in transit from 

 fire or from any other cause whatsoever was held just and 

 reasonable where the drover accompanied the cattle and saw 

 them put into a closed car which could only be opened by a 

 slide, the lid having afterwards been closed and some of the 

 cattle suffocated.^® But in a later case a condition that a 

 company should be free from all risk and responsibility for 

 loss or damage from loading or unloading or injury in 

 transit from any cause whatever, it being agreed that 



" Holsapple v. Rome, W. & O. R. Co., 86 N. Y. 275, where the case 

 last cited was distinguished on the ground that there the injury resulted 

 from the vitality and inherent nature of the animals for which the carrier 

 was not liable at the common law, while here it resulted from fire for 

 which the common-law liability would have attached. 



" Hutchinson Carriers § 260. 



"' McCance v. London & North- Western R. Co., 7 H. & N. 477, 3 H. 

 & C. 343. 



"' Pardington v. South Wales R. Co., i H. & N. 392. 



