DUTIES OF TRAINMEN ; RATE OF SPEED ; SIGNALS. 593 



that it would be dangerous for the engineer of the former 

 train to stop before striking the animal, the company will be 

 held to have been negligent.^"^ Where the driver of a tram- 

 way car whistled and afterwards ran into a cab and horse, 

 injuring them, the fact that he had intended to stop the car 

 but could not do it on account of the steepness and greasiness 

 of the street, he having seen the cab with its wheel on the 

 rail when it was fifty yards away, does not excuse the com- 

 pany.^**^ And where the engineer ran too fast down grade 

 around a curve to be able to stop, this shows negligence.*"^ 

 In general, running at too high a rate of speed under the 

 circumstances or at more than the statutory rate, if there is. 

 one, is negligence. ■"** Where the owner of stock allows it 

 to run at large contrary to law and it is injured by a railway 

 train in a place where there is no obligation to fence, the 

 company has been held responsible if the injury arose from, 

 the gross negligence of its employees but not if it arose 

 merely from the violation of a city ordinance limiting the rate 

 of speed : the latter is evidence of negligence but not negli- 



R. & Elec. Co., lOO id. 424; Memphis & Charleston R. Co. v. Lyon, 62.- 

 id. 71; Ala. Midland R. Co. v. McGill (Ala.), 25 South. Rep. 731. 



'" Louisv. & N. R. Co. v. Kelton, supra. 



"" M'Dermaid v. Edinburgh Tramway Co., 12 Rettie (So. Ct. Sess.) 15. 



'™ Cent. R. Co. v. Russell, 75 Ga. 810. 



^°* E. Tenn., V. & G. R. Co. v. Deaver, 79 Ala. 216; Birmingham R. & 

 Elec. R. Co. V. City Stable Co. (Ala.), 24 South. Rep. 558; Ford v. St. 

 Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co. (Ark.), 50 S. W. Rep. 864; Atlantic & Gulf 

 R. Co. V. Burt, 49 Ga. 606; Lake Erie & W. R. Co. v. Norris, 60 111. App. 

 112; St. Louis, V. & T. H. R. Co. v. Morgan, 12 id. 256; Cleveland, C, 

 C. & St. L. R. Co. V. Ahrens, 42 id. 434; Chic., B. & Q. R. Co. v. Hag- 

 gerty, 67 111. 113; Chic, R. I. & P. R. Co. v. Reidy, 66 id. 43; Courson 

 V. Chic, M. & St. P. R. Co., 71 la. 28; Bowman v. Chic. & A. R. Co.. 85 

 Mo. 533; Windsor v. Hannibal & St. J. R. Co., 45 Mo. App. 123; Un.. 

 Pac R. Co. V. Rassmussen, 23 Neb. 810; Clark v. Boston & M. R. Co., 

 64 N. H. 323; Greeley v. Fed. St. & P. V. P. R. Co., iS3 Pa. St. 218; 

 Jones V. No. Car. R. Co., 70 N. C. 626; Molair v. Pt. Royal & A. R. Co., 

 31 S. C. 510; Houston & T. C. R. Co. v. Terry, 42 Tex. 451- 



And see Proctor v. Wilmington & W. R. Co., 72 N. C. 579; Rockford, 

 R. I. & St. L. R. Co. V. Linn, 67 111. 109; St. Louis, A. & T. R. Co. v.. 

 Felton, 4 Tex. App. (Civ. Cas.) 60. 

 38 



