604 LIABILITY IRRESPECTIVE OV TENCING LAWS. 



order to get it accustomed to them, and it is the duty of those 

 managing the car to use every effort to avoid injury.^'^ 

 And the mere failure of one driving along a street on which 

 is an electric railway to look for approaching cars will not 

 prevent recovery for injuries resulting from the horse's 

 fright.^*^ But the company is not liable where horses run 

 away because of weak and insufificient lines or because the 

 driver is so situated that he cannot use ordinary force to con- 

 trol them. And the mere fright does not show that the 

 driver is in peril: the presumption is that he will control 

 the horses."* Where the plaintiff's horse became frightened 

 by the breaking of the defendant's trolley wire and the plain- 

 tiff, alarmed by the noise and electric flashes, jumped out and 

 was injured, it was held that no presumption of negligence 

 arose from the unexplained breaking of the wire.^"^ 



Where the engineer of a railroad train sees that an animal 

 near the track is frightened, it is frequently his duty 

 to slacken speed or omit or change the ordinary signal."^ 

 The rule has been laid down that, if he sees the animal 

 frightened, he should refrain from giving the signal, and 

 should, if necessary, slacken the speed or stop the train; but 

 if he reaches the place where the statutory signal should be 

 given and it is uncertain whether the train can be stopped 

 before reaching the crossing, he must give the signal and 



"' Flewelling v. Lewistoii & A. H. R. Co., 89 Me. 585. 



Cf. Cornell v. Detroit Elec. R. Co., 82 Mich. 495, where it was held that 

 the plaintiff taking a horse young and unused to cars to test it was guilty 

 of contributory negligence. 



"^ Benjamin v. Holyoke St. R. Co., supra. 



"" East St. Louis & St. L. E. St. R. Co. v. Wachtel, 63 111. App. 181. 

 And see Terre Haute Elec. R. Co. v. Yant, 21 Ind. App. 486; Flaherty 

 •V. Harrison, 98 Wis. 559. 



'°° Kepner v. Harrisburg Trac. Co., 183 Pa. St. 24. In this case neither 

 the wire, nor any of the sparks emitted, touched the horse, wagon or 

 plaintiff. 



"°St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co. v. Lewis, 60 Ark. 409; Akridge v. 

 Atlanta & W. P. R. Co., 90 Ga. 232; Chic, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Dickson, 

 88 111. 431; Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. v. Box, 81 Tex. 670. 



