DUTIES OF TRAINMEN ; RATE OP SPEED ; SIGNALS. 591 



in failing to see the animal in time, the company does not 

 exonerate itself by proving that the engineer used due care.*^ 

 The lack of due care is not excused by the fact that the ani- 

 mal was wrongfully on the track.*** In South Carolina it has 

 been held that much less care is required of the company 

 since the passing of the stock law requiring stock to be en- 

 closed.*® But in a Georgia case it was held that an instruc- 

 tion that less care is required where the stock law is in force 

 or running through a field than where the land is unenclosed 

 was properly refused as ordinary care is always required, 

 though dififering according to circumstances.*" 



Where a dog is killed while trespassing by failure of the 

 engineer to exercise ordinary care, the company is liable.®* 

 So, a street railway company is liable for carelessly or wan- 

 tonly kiUing a dog, though the same degree of care is not 

 required as in the case of a human being; ®^ and the motorman 

 cannot rely on the alertness and quickness of the animal, so as 

 to relieve himself of all duty to try to prevent an accident.®^ 



"' Little Rock & M. R. Co. v. Chriscoe, 57 Ark. 192. 



"Toledo, P. & W. R. Co. v. Bray, 57 HI. 514; Rockford, R. I. & St. L. 

 R. Co. V. Lewis, 58 id. 49; Cine. & Z. R. Co. v. Smith, 22 O. St. 227. 



Where the animal is wrongfully on the track, there is no strict rule that 

 the engineer must slacken his speed: Bemis v. Conn. & P. R. R. Co., 42 

 Vt. 375. And while cattle running at large are not trespassers, the owner 

 who voluntarily lets them go in perilous places cannot ask the company 

 to slacken speed or drive them off in order to deliver them from such 

 peril: Smith v. Chic, R. L & P. R. Co., 34 la- 5o6. 



"Joyner v. So. Car. R. Co., 26 S. C. 49; Molair v. Port Royal & A. 

 R. Co., 29 id. 152; Harley v. Eutawville R. Co., 31 id. 151. 



" Cent. R. Co. v. Summerford, 87 Ga. 626. 



" St. Louis, Ark. & Tex. R. Co. v. Hanks, 78 Tex. 300. Cf. Tex. & 

 Pac. R. Co. V. Scott, 4 Tex. App. (Civ. Cas.) 476. 



Dogs are personal property for the negligent killing of which a com- 

 pany is liable: St. Louis S. W. R. Co. v. Stanfield, 63 Ark. 643; Jones 

 V. HI. Cent. R. Co., 75 Miss. 97o; Salley v. Manchester' & A. R. Co. 

 (S. C), 32 S. E. Rep. 526. ^ ^ 



'^ Furness v. Union R. Co., 8 Kulp (Pa.) 103; Meisch v. Rochester 

 Elec. R. Co., 72 Hun (N. Y.) 604. 



" Citizens' Rapid-Transit Co. v. Dew, 100 Tenn. 317, where it was also 

 said that a company should have a sufficient number of employees on its 



