588 LIABILITY IRRESPECTIVE OF FENCING LAWS. 



was held not to be sufficiently warned that the load was 

 fast and could not be moved, and the plaintiff was held guilty 

 of contributory negligence in not unhitching the horses, 

 as he could have done, when he saw the smoke of the 

 approaching train.'"' And where a boy, the plaintiff's agent, 

 rode a horse on a track without a bridle and therefore failed 

 to get him off in time, no recovery was allowed, the en- 

 gineer not having been grossly negligent in failing to signal, 

 as he had a right to expect a person on the track to act 

 with reasonable care and caution.'^' 



Where a collision is to be apprehended, blowing the whistle 

 to frighten the animal is not sufficient: the train should be 

 stopped, or, at least, its speed slackened.'''^ Thus, it is gross 

 negligence where the engineer drives the animals to a place 

 where there is little probability they can leave the track and 

 does not stop.^^ And it is immaterial that the engineer does 

 not recognize the nature of the obstacle.'''* But in a New York 

 case where the engineer sounded the whistle for a quarter of 

 a mile but did not slow up and the horse could have got off 

 the track at any time but did not do so and was killed, it was 

 held that there could be no recovery without proof of wanton- 

 ness.'^^ The engineer should stop also to avoid a self-inflicted 



" Frost V. Milwaukee & N. R. Co., 96 Mich. 470. 



"■Wabash, St. L. & Pac. R. Co. v. Krough, 13 111. App. 431. 



"' Campbell v. Great West. R. Co., 15 U. C. Q. B. 498; Bullington v. 

 Newport News & M. V. Co., 32 W. Va. 436; Kan. City, M. & B. R. Co. 

 V. Watson, 91 Ala. 483; Ala. Gt. South. R. Co. v. Powers, 73 id. 244; 

 Chattanooga S. R. Co. v. Daniel (Ala.), 25 South. Rep. 197; Chic. & 

 Alton R. Co. V. Kellam, 92 111. 245; Toledo, W. & W. R. Co. v. McGinnis, 

 71 id. 346; Chic. & N. R. Co. v. Barrie, 55 id. 226; Ohio & M. R. Co. 

 V. Stribling, 38 111. App. 17; Shuman v. Indianapolis & St. L. R. Co., 11 

 id. 472; Mo. Pac. R. Co. v. Gedney, 44 Kan. 329; Mobile & O. R. Co. 

 V. Gunn, 68 Miss. 366; Lawson v. Chic, R. I. & P. R. Co., 57 la. 672; 

 Snowden v. Norfolk S. R. Co., 95 N. C. 93; Denver & R. G. R. Co. v. 

 Nye, 9 Colo. App. 94. 



" 111. Cent. R. Co. v. Baker, 47 111. 295. And see St. Louis, I. M. & S. 

 R. Co. V. Bragg (Ark.), s S. W. Rep. 273. 



" Gilchrist v. Reg., 2 Can. Exch. 300. 



" Boyle V. New York. L. E. & W. R. Co., 39 Hun (N. Y.) 171. 



