600 LIABILITY IRRESPECTIVE OF FENCING LAWS. 



not obliged to signal and a train came suddenly out of a 

 cutting, frightening his horses and killing him, it was held 

 that the company was not liable.^" Where the engineer of 

 a dummy train, not knowing that the brake had been taken 

 off, reversed on a steep grade and the train backed too 

 rapidly, colliding with a wagon which was on the track by 

 reason of the mules drawing it being suddenly frightened 

 by the backward movement of the train, the occurrence was 

 held to be a pure accident and the company not liable.^** 

 The company is not, as a rule, liable for fright produced 

 by noises or sights due to the ordinary operation of trains. 

 "Railroads cannot be operated without noise, and if teams 

 are frightened by the usual noise arising from a prudent and 

 proper management of a train or engine, the railroad com- 

 pany is not liable for an injury resulting from such noise. 

 The making of an unnecessary noise by a railroad company 

 as, in this case, the escaping of steam, is not of itself evidence 

 of negligence. It may or may not be. To be negligence, 

 the noise must have been made under such circumstances 

 and suroundings as to time, place and situation of the parties 

 as to establish a neglect to exercise that degree of care which 

 a reasonable man would have exercised under the circum- 

 stances." ^*^ 



"' New Brunswick R. Co. v. Vanwart, 17 Can. Sup. Ct. 35, reversing 

 127 N. B. 59. 



'■** Rome St. R. Co. v. McGinnis, 94 Ga. 229. 



'* Omaha & R. V. R. Co. v. Brady, 39 Neb. 27, 41. 



As illustrations of this rule, see Stanton v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 91 

 Ala. 382; Oxford Lake Line v. Steadham, loi id. 376; Morgan v. Cent. 

 R. Co., 77 Ga. 788; Bailey v. Hartford & C. V. R. Co., 56 Conn. 444; 

 Indianapolis Union R. Co. v. Boettcher, 131 Ind. 82; Phila., W. & B. R. 

 Co. V. Stinger, 78 Pa. St. 219; Ryan v. Pa. R. Co., 132 id. 304; Stephens 

 V. Omaha & R. V. R. Co., 41 Neb. 167; Phillips v. N. Y. Cent. & H. R. 

 R. Co., 84 Hun (N. Y.) 412; Moshier v. Utica & S. R. Co., 8 Barb. (N. 

 Y.) 427; Morgan v. Norfolk S. R. Co., 98 N. C. 247; Beaumont Pasture 

 Co. V. Sabine & E. T. R. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 41 S. W. Rep. 190; 

 Cahoon v. Chic. & N. R. Co., 85 Wis. 570; Hurd v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 

 IS Ont. App. 58. 



It applies to fright caused by a natural discharge of smoke at a neces- 



