DUTIES OF TRAINMEN ; RATE OF SPEED ; SIGNALS. 597 



for the jury, to say what signals should be adopted.124 jf ^.j^^ 

 engineer could not sound the cattle-alarm and signal to the 

 brakeman at the same time, this might be an excuse for fail- 

 ure to do the former.i^B It is not sufficient to show that 

 the signal was not given : it must also be shown that such 

 failure was the cause of the injury to the animal.^^' Such 

 was formerly the rule in Missouri; ^^'^ but now, by statute, 

 on proof of failure to give the signal, the burden is shifted on 

 the defendant, who may then show that the accident was not 

 caused by such failure."^ Where the plaintiff and his driver 

 were drunk and the horses, frightened by the train, ran into 

 the engine, it was held that the failure to give the statutory 

 signal was not the proximate cause of the accident, but the 

 fright of the horses and the inability to control them by 

 reason of intoxication.^ ^^ 



133. Liability for Frightening Animals — A railway company 

 is liable for injuries resulting from the fright of animals 

 caused by unnecessary noises in the management of trains, 

 such as carelessly blowing off steam, etc.^^" The same rule 



"^ Hollender v. N, Y. Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 14 Daly (N. Y.) 219. 



"= Mobile & G. R. Co. v. Caldwell, 83 Ala. 196. 



'™ Chic. & Alton R. Co. v. Hanley, 26 111. App. 3S1; St. Louis, V. & T. 

 H. R. Co. V. Hurst, 25 id. 181; 111. Cent. R. Co. v. Phelps, 29 111. 447; 

 Louisville, N. A. & C. R. Co. v. Ousler, 15 Ind. App. 232; Leavitt v. Terre 

 Haute & I. R. Co., s id. 5^3; Pratt v. Chic, R. I. & P. R. Co. (la.), 77 

 N. W. Rep. 1064. 



=" Holman v. Chic, R. I. & P. R. Co., 62 Mo. 562; Braxton v. Hanni- 

 bal & St. J. R. Co., 77 id. 455. 



.^nd, on an agreed statement of facts, there must be shown to be a 

 connection between the killing and the omission of a duty: Smith v. 

 Hannibal & St. J. R. Co., 47 Mo. App. 546. 



''-' Barr n. Hannibal & St. J. R. Co., 30 Mo. App. 248. And see Turner 

 V. Kan. City, St. J. & C. B. R. Co., 78 Mo. .578. 



"' Butcher v. W. Va. & P. R. Co., 37 W. Va. 180. 



'"' Fritts V. N. Y. & N. E. R. Co., 62 Conn. 503; Wabash R. Co. v. 

 Speer, 156 111. 245; Chic, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Yorty, 56 111. App. 242; 111. 

 Cent. R. Co. V. Larson. 42 id. 264; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Upton, 18 

 id. 605; Terre Haute & I. R. Co. v. Brunker, 128 Ind. 542; Rodgers v. 

 Bait. & O. S. R. Co., ISO id. 397; Louisville, N. A. & C. R. Co. v. Davis, 



