586 LIABILITY IRRESPECTIVE OF FENCING LAWS. 



down and was so near the track as to endanger the safety 

 of other trains. ^^ 



In some jurisdictions it has been held not sufficient to show 

 that the engineer used reasonable diligence after discovering 

 the animal : he must keep a proper lookout all the time and 

 is negligent if he fails to do so,^* except, of course, where that 

 would interfere with important duties. °^ In other States it 

 is held that where there has been no negligence with regard 

 to fencing, and the presence of the animal is not to be reason- 

 ably anticipated, no lookout need be kept : care after dis- 

 covery is sufficient.^" In Arkansas it has been held that an 

 animal running at large not being a trespasser, a lookout 

 must be kept.^^ But now the rule there appears to be that 



"' Mexican C. R. Co. z>. Lauricella (Tex. Civ. App.), 26 S. W. Rep. 301.- 



°' E. Tenn., V. & G. R. Co. v. Watson, 90 Ala. 41; Western R. of Ala. v. 

 I-azarus, 88 id. 453; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Rice, loi id. 676; Ala. G. 

 S. R. Co. V. Moody, 92 id. 279; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Posey, 96 id. 

 262; Cent. R. & Bkg. Co. v. Lee, Ibid. 444; Birmingham Mineral R. Co. 

 V. Harris, 98 id, 326; Carlton v. Wilmington & W. R. Co., 104 N. C. 365,- 

 Omaha & R. V. R. Co. v. Wright, 47 Neb. 886; Cine. & Z. R. Co, v. 

 Smith, 22 O. St. 227; Louisv. & Nashv. R. Co. v. Stone, 7 Heisk. (Tenn.) 

 468; Layne v. Ohio River R, Co,, 35 W. Va. 438; McMaster v. Montana- 

 Un. R. Co., 12 Mont. 163; Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. v. Washington, 49 Fed. 

 Rep. 347; Same v. Johnson, 54 id. 474. 



™ E. Tenn., Va. & Ga. R. Co. v. Bayliss, yj Ala, 429, 74 id. 150; Same 

 V. Baker, 94 id. 632; 111. Cent. R. Co. v. Burns, 32 111. App. 196; Howard 

 V. Louisville, N. O. & T, R. Co., 67 Miss. 247; Rogers v. Georgia R. Co.,. 

 100 Ga. 699. 



And it is not incumbent on the company to have a third employee on 

 the engine to keep such lookout: Rogers v. Georgia R. Co., supra. 



'° Brooks V. Hannibal & St. J. R. Co., 27 Mo. App. 573 [Cf. Same v. 

 Same, 35 id. 571]; Welch v. Same, 20 id. 477; Jewett v. Kan. City, C. & 

 S. R. Co., 38 id. 48; Castor v. Kan. City, Ft. S. & M. R. Co., 65 id. 359; 

 Averill v. Santa Fe Recrs., 72 id. 243; 111. Cent. R. Co. v. Noble, 142 111. 

 578; Delta Electric Co. v. Whitcamp, 58 111. App. 141; Stacey v. Winona 

 & St. P. R. Co., 42 Minn. 158; Palmer v. North. Pac. R. Co., 37 id. 223; 

 Mooers v. Same, 69 id. 90; Home Constr. Co. v. Church, 14 Ky. L. Rep.- 

 807; Harrison v. Chic, M. & St. P. R. Co., 6 S. D. 100; Houston & T. 

 C. R. Co. V. Carruth (Tex. Civ. App.), 50 S. W. Rep. 1036. 



" LiUle Rock & Ft. S. R. Co. v. Finley, ?,7 Ark. 562. And see Gulf, C- 

 & S. F. R. Co. V. John.son, 54 Fed. Rep. 474. 



