DUTIES OF TRAINMEN ; RATE OF SPEED ; SIGNALS. 587 



it is not necessary to keep a perpetual lookout for animals on 

 the track.*'^ In Minnesota the rule that a lookout is not 

 necessary in the case of a trespassing animal has been held to 

 apply to the case of an animal wrongfully on the highway at a 

 railway crossing-^* Where the statute requires a lookout to 

 be kept, it need not be shown that it has always been kept: 

 it is sufificient for the company to prove that the precaution 

 was observed when the accident happened.^* And where 

 keeping a lookout would have availed nothing, the animal 

 having been concealed from view, the fact that none was kept 

 affords no ground for recovery."^ The engineer, where he 

 does not see the animal, need not necessarily attend to the 

 gestures of third persons. ®® 



When an animal on the track is seen in time to avoid col- 

 lision, the duty of the engineer depends somewhat on cir- 

 cumstances. He need stop the engine only where there is 

 a reasonable apprehension that the animal will remain there. ®'^ 

 But there is no presumption that the animal will step from 

 the track in time to avoid injury.^^ And where a team was 

 stationary on the track, the engineer was held guilty of neg- 

 ligence in assuming that it would be removed in time, whereas 

 the wagon was stalled.®^ On the other hand, where an en- 

 gineer saw horses attached to a load of logs a mile away, he 



" Memphis & L. R. R. Co. v. Kerr, 52 Ark. 162. 



" Palmer v. North. Pac. R. Co., 37 Minn. 223. 



Cf. Harrison v. Chic, M. & St. P. R. Co., 6 S. D. 100. 



" Louisville & Nashv. R. Co. z>. Stone, 7 Heisk. (Tenn.) 468. 



The approved equipment of the train is not a sufficient defence; Mo- 

 bile & B. R, Co. V. Kirabrough, 96 Ala. 127. 



"" Choate v. Southern R. Co. (Ala.), 24 South. Rep. 373- 



""Dennis v. Louisville, N. A. & C. R. Co., 116 Ind. 42. 



" Grimmell v. Chic. & N. R. Co., 73 la- 93; Little Rock & Ft. S. R. Co. 

 V. Trotter, 37 Ark. 593; Warren v. Chic, M. & St. P. R. Co., 59 Mo. App. 



367- 



™ Dennis v. Louisville, N. A. & C. R. Co., 116 Ind. 42; Elmsley v. Ga. 

 Pac R. Co. (Miss.), 10 South. Rep. 41. 



"• Chic. & Alton R. Co. v. Hogarth, 38 HI- 370. And see Saffer v. 

 Westchester Elec. R. Co., 22 Misc. (N. Y.) SSS- 



