512 CARRIERS OP ANIMALS. 



dent to the train and there was no proof of the defendant's 

 negligence, the cause of the injuries being unknown except 

 that they appeared to have been caused by the horse getting 

 upon the floor of the horse-box, it was held that the defend- 

 ants were not liable, as it was to be inferred that the damage 

 resulted from the propensity of the horse."" So, in a Penn- 

 sylvania case, where a horse was shipped under a contract 

 relieving the carrier from loss in transit except through gross 

 negligence, and died on the way, and there was no proof 

 of the cause of the death, it was held that no presumption of 

 negligence arose from the fact of the loss and the plaintiff 

 was not entitled to recover. The court said: "If, for any 

 reason, an 'injurious accident' happens to, or by reason of, 

 that which the carrier provides for the transportation, the 

 law, which imposes the exercise of the utmost care upon him, 

 presumes the accident to be due to the want of that care and 

 puts upon him the duty of successfully relieving himself from 

 that presumption. But when the fact of an 'injurious accident' 

 is not shown to exist, the presumption which arises from it 

 cannot be invoked by a plaintiff. The contract of the carrier 

 does not insure against death generally, but only as it may 

 be the result of an injurious accident in the course of the 

 carriage." ^" Subject to the above qualification, loss is 

 prima facie proof of the carrier's negligence, ^^^ and it has been 

 held that where the stock were wholly in the carrier's care 

 he must show by a preponderance of evidence that their death 

 resulted from the inherent nature of the animals without any 

 contributory negligence on his part.^^* In fact, the qualifica- 



»"' Kendall v. London & S. W. R. Co., L. R. 7 Ex. 373. 



'^^ Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Raiordon, 119 Pa. St. 577. 



"^Louisville, Cine. & L. R. Co. v. Hedger, 9 Bush (Ky.) 645; Porter- 

 field V. Humphreys, 8 Humph. (Tenn.) 497; Mo. Pac. R. Co. v. Scott, 

 4 Tex. Civ. App. 76; St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Parmer (Tex. Civ. App.), 

 30 S. W. Rep. 1109; Curran v. Midland Gr. West. R. Co., [1896] 2 I R 

 183. 



='= Lindsley v. Chic, M. & St. P. R. Co., 36 Minn. 539; Dow v. Port- 

 land S. P. Co., 84 Me. 490. 



