GENERAL LIABILITY ; NEGLIGENCE, ETC. 585 



result of their negligence, as in the case of frightening 



animals, where no question of direct collision arises at 

 all.s2 



132. Duties of Trainmen; Rate of Speed; Signals In con- 

 sidering the responsibility of railway companies for injuries 

 to animals caused by the acts or omissions of their employees, 

 it must be remembered that the first duty of the latter is to 

 the persons on the train, and that this is paramount to that 

 of trying to avoid injury to animals on or near the track.^* 

 This principle has been frequently applied where the question 

 has been whether the speed of the train should or should not 

 have been slackened. "In such case the first duty of the 

 engineer is for the safety of his passengers and it is held that, 

 when he cannot stop his train before striking the cattle, he is 

 justified in running at a high rate of speed, if in so doing there 

 is less danger of derailing his train, though the result is to 

 render the escape of the cattle more difificult." ^* So, the 

 engineer may prefer his own safety to that of the animal."' 

 Conversely, where the collision should have been avoided, 

 the company is liable for resulting injuries to passengers."' 

 Thus, where an animal knocked down by a train was left too 

 close to the track, the company was held liable for an injury 

 to a passenger by the derailment of a later train, if the em- 

 ployees on the first train knew that the animal was knocked 



" See § 133, infra, with regard to liability for frightening animals. 



"Witherell v. Milwaukee & St. P. R. Co., 24 Minn. 410; Kentucky 

 Cent, R. Co. V. Lebus, 14 Bush (Ky.) 518; Kirk v. Norfolk & W. R. Co., 

 41 W. Va. 722; Wallace v. St. Louis. I. M. & S. R. Co., 74 Mo. 594. 



" Robinson v. Flint & P. M. R. Co., 79 Mich. 323, citing i Thomp. 

 Negl. 506. 'And see Bemis v. Conn. & P. R. R. Co., 42 Vt. 375; Judd 

 V. Wabash, St. L. & P. R. Co., 23 Mo. App. s6; E. Tenn., Va. & Ga, R. 

 Co. V. Selcer, 7 Lea (Tenn.) 557; Bunnell v. Rio Grande W. R. Co., 13 

 Utah 314; Chic, St. L. & N. O. R. Co. v. Jones, 59 Miss. 465- 



" Yazoo & M. V. R. Co. v. Brumfield, 64 Miss. 637. 



" Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Elder, 50 111. App. 276; Eames v. Tex. 

 & N, O. R. Co., 63 Tex. 660. 



