592 LIABILITY IRRESPECTIVE OP FENCING LAWS. 



But where the whistle was sounded when the dogs were 

 first seen, a few feet in front of the engine, it was held that 

 they were entitled only to the consideration due trespassers 

 and that the company was not liable.''* And the prima facie 

 presumption of negligence arising from injuries to persons 

 and property has been held not to apply to the killing of 

 Xiogs.^^ 



If the injury to an animal could have been prevented by 

 proper care, the mere slackening of speed will not relieve the 

 company from liability.^'' The fact that reversing the en- 

 gine hurts the machinery is no excuse for not slackening the 

 speed; otherwise, if the lives of persons on the train are en- 

 dangered.*^ A train can ordinarily be slackened sufficiently 

 within a distance of two hundred yards and the burden is on 

 the defendant to show special circumstances rendering it un- 

 safe and impracticable to do so.®* It is no defence that the 

 speed was slackened to the statutory rate at the moment of 

 collision, when it was unlawful just before. ®® It is negligent 

 to run the train at night at such a rate of speed that stock 

 cannot be seen by the headlight in time to prevent injury; 

 but if the injury results from unusual causes, such as fog, fall- 

 ing snow, rain, etc., there is no negligence if due care is used 

 otherwise.^"* And if a train is followed so closely by another 



cars to operate them in a careful manner, so as to prevent injury to per- 

 sons and animals on the track. 



" Fink V. Evans, 95 Tenn. 413. 



" Jemison v. Southwestern R. Co., 75 Ga. 444; Wilson v. Wil. & Man. R. 

 Co., 10 Rich. L. (S. C.) 52. Contra, Jones v. Bond, 40 Fed. Rep. 281. 



" Pontiac Pac. June. R. Co. v. Brady, Montr. L. Rep., 4 Q. B. 346. 



This decision has been modified by subsequent legislation exonerating 

 the company from all liability for killing straying animals: Can. Pac. R. 

 Co. V. Cross, Rap. Jud. Quebec, 3 B. R. 170. 



" E. Tenn., Va. & Ga. R. Co. v. Selcer, 7 Lea (Tenn.) 557. And see 

 Pryor v. St. Louis, K. C. & N. R. Co., 69 Mo. 215. 



" Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. V. Ellis, S4 Fed. Rep. 481. 



" 111. Cent. R. Co. v. Jordan, 63 Miss. 458. ' 



"" Cent. R. & Bkg. Co. v. Ingram, 98 Ala. 395; Louisv. & N. R. Co. v. 

 Kehon, 112 id, 533; Killiker-Krebs Bdg. & Manufg. Co. v. Birmingham 



