DUTIKS OF TltAINMEN ; KATE OF SPEED ; SKJXALS. 595 



-from."" Where, by the unlawful speed of a train, animals in 

 station grounds are stampeded and run on the track, breaking 

 fences, etc., and are run down and killed, the unlawful speed 

 is the proximate cause of the injury.^^^ And where a cow 

 was killed at a railway crossing by a train running at an un- 

 lawful rate of speed and would not have been killed other- 

 wise, the company was held not to be exonerated from lia- 

 bility by the fact that she was being chased by a dog at the 

 time and that this might have contributed to her running on 

 the track and being killed. ^^* 



The duty of ringing the bell or blowing the whistle as a 

 warning is largely dependent on statutory rule. Disregard of 

 the statute in this respect is evidence of negligence on the 

 part of the company."^ The general duty of trying to 

 frighten the animal ol¥ the track, where that is possible, has 

 been already considered. The failure to give the statutory ' 

 signal is equally culpable whether the injury results from 



"'Harlan v. Wabash, St. L. & P. R. Co., 18 Mo. App. 483; Western 

 & Atlantic R. Co. v. Main, 64 Ga. 649; Ohio & M. R. Co. v. Craycraft, 

 i Ind. App. 33S; Louisville, N. O. & T. R. Co. v. Caster (Miss.), 5 

 South. Rep. 388. 



That the burden is on the company to show that the injury did not so 

 result, see Jones v. 111. Cent. R. Co., 75 Miss. 970. 



"' Story V. Chic, M. & St. P. R. Co., 79 la. 402. 



The liability in Iowa under such circumstances is confined to stock 

 "running at large": Strever v. Chic. & N. R. Co., 106 la. 137. 



'" Jeffs V. Rio Grande W. R. Co., 9 Utah 374. 



"= Chic, St. L. & P. R. Co. V. Fenn, 3 Ind- App. 250; Orcutt v. Pac 

 ■Coast R. Co., 8S Cal. 291; Great Western R. Co. v. Geddis, 33 HI. 304; 

 St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co. V. Hendricks, 53 Ark. 201; Barr v. Hannibal 

 & St. J. R. Co., 30 Mo. App. 248; Kendrick v. Chic. & A. R. Co., 81 

 Mo. 521 ; Wallace v. St. Louis. I. M. & S. R. Co., 74 id. 594; Mo. Pac. 

 R. Co. V. Stevens, 35 Kan. 622; South. Kan. R. Co. v. Schmidt, 44 id. 374; 

 E Tenn V & G R. Co., v. Watson, 90 Ala. 41; Ga. R. & Bkg. Co. v. 

 ■Clary, 103 Ga. 639;- Galveston, H. & S. A. R. Co. v. Balkam (Tex. Civ. 

 App), 20 S. W. Rep. 860; Lonergan v. 111. Cent. R. Co., 87 la. 755; t"- 

 •Cent. R. Co. v. Person, 65 Miss. 319; Eddy v. Evans, 58 Fed. Rep^ 151; 

 Robertson v. Halifax Coal Co., 20 Nov. Sco. HT, Tyson v. Grand Trunk 

 R. Co., 20 U. C. Q. B. 256. 



