584 LIABILITY IRRESPECTIVE OP FENCING LAWS. 



track into a bridge and is killed, the company is liable.*' 

 This is the law also in Nebraska.*^ 



In Kansas, where the statute makes the company liable for 

 injuries caused "in operating such railway," no actual colli- 

 sion need be shown.*^ In Oregon, the statute makes the 

 company liable for injuries near an unfenced track when 

 caused by a moving train upon such track, and this was held 

 to extend to the case of a horse injured by falling from a 

 trestle, whether there had been actual collision or not.*® In 

 a Mississippi case it was held that evidence that a horse was 

 injured by rushing into a pit through fright, without having 

 been struck by the train, would not support a judgment 

 against the railway company, as no wrong of its servants had 

 been shown, though it was said that a company might be re- 

 sponsible for such wrong though there had been no actual 

 contact.^" 



In Canada, a company not complying with the statutory 

 requirement of ringing the bell when approaching a crossing 

 was held liable for injuries resulting to the occupants of a 

 carriage from the fright of a horse, though there had been 

 no actual contact.^^ 



And, in general, it may be stated that the issue involved 

 in the above cases is ordinarily one of statutory interpretation 

 and that, irrespective of actions brought under particular 

 statutes, there are in all the jurisdictions many instances of 

 railway companies' incurring a common-law liability for the 



"Van Slyke v. Chic, St. P. & K. C. R. Co., 80 la. 620; Liston v. Cent, 

 la. R. Co., 70 id. 714. 



" Chic, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Cox, 51 Neb. 479, following Fremont. E. 

 & M. V. R. Co. V. Pounder, 36 id. 247, and overruling Burlington & M. R. 

 R. Co. V. Shoemaker, 18 id. 369. 



'" Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Jones, 20 Kan. 527; Same v. Edward, 

 Ibid. 531; Mo. Pac R. Co. v. Eckel, 49 id. 794. 



" Meeker v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 21 Oreg. 513 



'" New Orleans & N. E. R. Co. v. Thornton, 65 Miss. 256. 



" Grand Trunk R. Co. v. Sibbald, 20 Can. Sup, Ct. 259. 



