LIABILITY FOR FRIGHTENING ANIMALS. 605 



negligence is not imputable therefrom.i^"^ Although there 

 may be nothing to prevent the driver from turning the team 

 away from the railroad, the engineer is not, as a matter of 

 law, free from negligence in failing to put on the brakes where 

 he observes that the animals have become unmanageable.^^* 

 And the engineer and fireman may be guilty of negligence in 

 failing to see signals made by a person trying to control a 

 frightened horse backing towards a crossing."" Where 

 animals had strayed on the track and were frightened by a 

 train while the plaintiff's servant was trying to remove them 

 and got on a bridge where they were injured or killed, there 

 being a space on the side of the track by which they might 

 have passed, it was held that there was no duty on the part 

 of the engineer to wait till they had actually been driven 

 ofT.^o 



A railway company has been held not to be guilty of negli- 

 gence in failing to erect fences or screens near its stations 

 in order that animals might not see trains and become 

 frightened.^'^^ Where the company fails to remove or bury 

 a dead animal it is liable for the consequences, if another 

 animal is frightened thereby.^''^ 



It has been held that in an action for an injury caused by 

 frightening horses, evidence that other horses had taken fright 

 at the same object is inadmissible, the question what objects 

 are likely to cause fright being one to be determined by the 

 court and jury in each case."^ But in other cases it is held 



'" Louisville, N. A. & C. R. Co. v. Stanger, 7 Ind. App. 179. 



"" Chic, K. & W. R. Co. V. Prouty, 55 Kan. 503. 



"" Leavitt v. Terre Haute & I. R. Co., 5 Ind App. Si3- 



"° Hurd V. Grand Trunk R. Co., 15 Ont. App. 58. 



'"Flagg V. Chic, D. & C. G. T. J. R. Co., 96 Mich. 30; Simkin v. 

 London & N. W. R. Co., 21 Q. B. D. 453- 



See Moshier v. Utica & S. R. Co., 8 Barb. (N. Y.) 427, as to precautions 

 to be taken where a parallel turnpike has to be kept up. 



"= Baxter v. Chic, R. I. & P. R. Co., 87 la. 488; Chic. & A. R. Co. 

 V. Scranton, 78 111. App. 230. 



'™ Cleveland, C, C. & I. R. Co. v. Wynant, 114 Ind. 525- 



