696 LIABILITY IRRESPECTIVE OF FENCING LAWS. 



actual collision or from the fright of an animal."'* Under 

 certain circumstances, however, such failure will be excused 

 where the result of ringing the bell or blowing the whistle 

 would be to frighten or increase the fright of an animal and 

 thereby cause injury.^^^ 



The rule as to signalling on approaching a crossing has 

 been held to apply to public crossings only; "^ and only when 

 they are at grade."* It has been held also that its purpose 

 is to warn persons, not animals. "If it was the duty of the 

 engineer to blow the whistle as notice to the mule, I do not 

 see why the mule should not be held to the rule to 'stop, 

 look and listen.' To apply rules to dumb animals which 

 were intended only for reasonable beings brings us danger- 

 ously near to the realm of absurdity." ^^^ The statute has 

 been also held not to be intended for the protection of one 

 passing along a street parallel to the track with no intention 

 of crossing it;^^^ or ploughing in a field near the road.^^^ 

 On the other hand, it has been held that the intention was 

 to guard against injury from the fright of teams near the 

 crossing as well as from actual collision, and to make the 

 company liable where the plaintiff was travelling on a high- 

 way parallel to the railroad.^^* It is for the legislature, not 



""Voak v. North. Cent. R. Co., 75 N. Y. 320; Mo., K. & T. R. Co. 

 V. Magee (Tex.), 50 S. W. Rep. 1013; Grand Trunk R. Co. v. Rosen- 

 berger, 9 Can. Sup. Ct. 311. 



'" Louisville, N. A. & C. R. Co. v. Stanger, 7 Ind. App. 179; Akridge 

 V. Atlanta & W. P. R. Co., 90 Ga. 232; Jenson v. Chic, St. P., M. & O. 

 R. Co., 86 Wis. 589. 



And see § 133, infra. 



"' Ravenscraft v. Mo. Pac. R. Co., 27 Mo. App. 617; Locke v. St. Paul 

 & Pac. R. Co., IS Minn. 350; Annapolis & Bait. S. L. R. Co. v. Pumphrey, 

 72 Md. 82. 



""Jenson v. Chic, St. P., M. & O. R. Co., 86 Wis. 589. 



'"" Fisher v. Pa. R. Co., 126 Pa. St. 293. And see Toudy v. Norfolk & 

 W. R, Co., 38 W. Va. 694. 



'" Louisville, E. & St. L. C. R. Co. v. Lee, 47 111. App. 384; E. Tenn., 

 Va. & Ga. R. Co. v. Feathers, 10 Lea (Tenn.) 103. 



■''Williams v. Chic. & A. R. Co., 135 111. 491. 



'" Ransom f. Chic, St. P., ^L & O. R. Co., 62 Wis. 178. 



