602 LIABILITY IRRESPECTIVE OF FENCING LAWS. 



of a horse that it was safe to cross, and the steam gauge after- 

 wards allowed steam to escape after reaching a certain pres- 

 sure whereby the horse was frightened, it was held that the 

 company was liable for the resulting injury.^^^ In a similar 

 case, where a flagman asserted there was no danger, liability 

 was denied.^'^^ And, ordinarily, there is no liability for fright 

 caused by the escape of steam from an automatic valve, 

 where the use of such valve is necessary for the safety of the 

 engine; ^^* though the fact of there being such a valve has 

 been held to be no answer, as matter of law, to a charge of 

 negligence.-*"^ 



Electric and other street railways are not liable for the 

 frightening of horses by the ordinary operation of their 

 cars.^^' And the mere fact that a horse is frightened at the 

 sight of a car going fast confers no right of action : the actual 

 rate of speed must be shown or that it was not a reasonably 

 prudent rate.^"'' The company is liable, however, if un- 

 necessary noise is made for the purpose of frightening the 

 animal, or if there is subsequent misconduct on the part of 



■». Lake Shore & M. S. R. Co., 4 Hun (N. Y.) 346, where the company 

 was held liable by reason of a sudden increase of steam after the flagmart 

 had beckoned the team to cross. See Duvall v. Bait. & O. R. Co., infra. 



'"" Louisv., N. A. & C. R. Co. v. Schmidt, 147 Ind. 638. 



'" Duvall V. Bait. & O. R. Co., y^ Md. 516. 



Cf. Borst V. Lake Shore & M. S. R. Co., supra. 



•"Louisville, N. A. & C. R. Co. v. Schmidt, 34 Ind, 16; Scaggs v. DeL 

 & H. Canal Co., 14S N. Y. 201 ; Wilson v. N. Y. Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 

 58 N. Y. Suppt. 617; Howard v. Un. Freight R. Co., 156 Mass. 159. And 

 see Dunn v. Wilmington & W. R. Co. (N. C), 32 S. E. Rep. 711. 



'" Presby v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 66 N. H. 615. 



"" Kankakee Elec. R. Co. v. Lade, 56 111. App. 454; Galesburg Elec. 

 Motor & Power Co. v. Manville, 6j id. 490; North Chic. St. R. Co. v. 

 Harms, 59 id. 374; Hazel v. People's Pass R. Co., 132 Pa. St. 96; 

 McDonald v. Toledo Consol. St. R. Co., 74 Fed. Rep. 104; Chapman f.. 

 Zanesville St. R. Co. (O.), 27 Wy L. Bull. 70. 



The question of negli.gence and contributory negligence is for the jury: 

 Blakeslee v. Consold. St. R. Co., 1X2 Mich. 63. 



"".Yingst V. Lebanon & A. St. R. Co., 167 Pa. St. 438. And see Greeley 

 V. Fed. St. & P. V. P. R. Co., is.^i id. 218: Smith v. Holmesburg, T. & F. 

 Elec. R. Co., 187 id. 451. 



