LIABILITY FOR FRIGHTENING ANIMALS. 599 



tion of the road by a car is not the proximate cause of an 

 injury caused by the fright of the animal at another train 

 passing during the time of delay.^^" But in a New York 

 case it was held that the delay in moving the obstructing 

 train and the approach of the other train were both con- 

 current and proximate causes.^^^ 



The company is liable for the fright of a horse caused by 

 discharging steam from a locomotive run back and forth on 

 its track near a highway for the purpose of "limbering" it.^^* 

 In all such cases it must appear not only that the opening of 

 the valves was unnecessary but that it was done under cir- 

 cumstances from which might be implied a failure to exercise 

 the care of a prudent and reasonable man.'^* Where the 

 engineer and fireman wantonly and maliciously blow the 

 whistle so as to frighten a horse which is being driven near 

 the track, they are acting within the scope of their em- 

 ployment so as to make the company liable for the conse- 

 quences.^*** 



Where the fright of the animal is due to the failure to 

 give proper warning of the approach of the train, the com- 

 pany is liable.^*^ But, in a Connecticut case, where the whistle 

 signalled the approach to a grade crossing, it was held that 

 no liability arose from the fact that it was not blown as far 

 back as the law required, and that then the plaintilif would 

 have been warned in time of the train's coming.^ *^ And where 

 the plaintiff's intestate was at a place where the company was 



""Stanton z: Louisville & N. R. Co., 91 Ala. 382; Selleck v. Lake 

 Shore & M. S. R, Co., 58 Mich. 195. 



"' Laible j-. N. Y. Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 13 N. Y. App. Div. 574- 



"" Terre Haute & L R. Co. v. Doyle, 56 111. App. 78. 



"" Omaha & R. V. R. Co. v. Clarke, 35 Neb- 867, 39 id. 65. And see 

 Toledo, St. L. & K. C. R. Co. v. Crittenden, 42 111. App. 469; Clancy v. 

 Glasgov; & South-Western R. Co., 25 Rettie (So. Ct. Sess.) 581. 



"° Tex. & Pac. R. Co. v. Scoville, 62 Fed. Rep. 730. 



'" Pollock V. Eastern R. Co., 124 Mass. 158; Laible v. N. Y. Cent. & H. 

 R. R. Co., 13 N. Y. App. Div. 574; Grand Trunk R. Co. v. Sibbald, 20 

 Can. Sup. Ct. 259; Vezina v. Reg., 2 Can. Ex. Ct. 11. 



"" Bailey v. Hartford & C. V. R. Co., 56 Conn. 444- 



