578 LIABILITY IRRESPECTIVE OF FENCING LAWS. 



former train was held to be too remote a cause of injury to 

 make the company liable^ And the fact that the company 

 -was negligent in failing to provide stock-pens, whereby cattle 

 escaped and were killed by one of its trains, would not alone 

 make it liable, if its agents and employees were free from fauh 

 at the time of the killing.* Where one walking by a track 

 -was struck by a cow which was thrown from the track by 

 the engine, the injury was held to be a proximate result of 

 striking the cow and the company was held liable, if the 

 engineer was negligent, though there was no negligence 

 towards the plaintiff." Where the animal is badly wounded 

 and the owner kills it to put it out of suffering, the com- 

 pany is liable for the killing." Damages from the non- 

 thriving of cattle owing to the construction of a railway 

 through a pasture where they are feeding are not remote or 

 speculative but are recoverable in an action of trespass quare 

 £lauswn fregit}^ 



Where the company left an unnecessarily large space be- 

 tween the rail and a plank placed beside it to facilitate the 

 passing of teams, it was held liable to the owner of a horse 

 fatally injured by catching its hoof therein and wrenching 

 it oi¥.^^ Otherwise, where a horse caught its foot at a private 

 crossing, not used by the company or serviceable to it.^^ 

 So, the company was held liable for the death of a horse 

 caused by its stepping on a spike in an overturned plank at 

 a railway crossing which employees were repairing, where 

 they invited the owner to drive across and he did not see 



' Brown v. Wabash, St. L. & P. R. Co., 20 Mo. App, 222. And see 

 Hyer v. Chamberlain, 46 Fed. Rep. 341. 



' Louisville & W. R. Co. v. Hall (Ga.), 32 S. E. Rep. 860. 



* Ala. G. S. R. Co. v. Chapman, 80 Ala. 615. 



'° Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Ireland, 19 Kan. 405. 



" Bait. & O. R. Co. V. Thompson, 10 Md. 76. 



" Cuddeback v. Jewett, 20 Hun (N. Y.) 187. And see Cotton v. New 

 York, L. E. & W. R. Co., 20 N. Y. Suppt. 347. 



" Pratt Coal & Iron Co. v. Davis, 79 Ala. 308. 



