608 LIABILITY IRRESPECTIVE OF FENCING LAWS. 



Nor is the fact that when they had strayed away he abandoned' 

 pursuit of them at night, knowing that trains frequently 

 passed, contributory negligence: such abandonment of pur- 

 suit is simply equivalent to letting them run at large.* ^' 



In Arkansas, the owner allowing his animals to run at large 

 assumes only the risk of accidents which may not be avoided 

 by ordinary care on the part of the company's employees **® 

 And the same rule prevails in California.**'' 



In Colorado, where an animal is unlawfully at large, the 

 company is liable only where there is gross negligence or 

 wantonness on the part of its employees.*** 



In Connecticut it has been held that the owner must have 

 been guilty of actual negligence and not of a mere technical 

 wrong to be precluded from recovery and that where cattle 

 at large without his fault go on the track and are killed 

 through the company's negligence, the latter is liable.*** 

 And in Florida the fact that the owner of cattle permits them 

 to run at large is not contributory negligence.**** 



In Illinois the owner of stock is not negligent in letting' 

 them run at large in the commons and highways of the 

 country.*®* The fact that he allows them unlawfully to run 

 at large does not relieve the company from liability for in- 

 juring them as a result of its failure to fence its right of way 

 in compliance with statute. Whether permitting them to run 



"° Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Williams, 105 Ala. 379. 



"" Little Rock & Ft. S. R. Co. v. Finley, 37 Ark. 562. 



""Richmond v. Sacramento Val. R. Co., 18 Cal. 351; Needham v. San- 

 Fran. & S. J. R. Co., 37 id. 409; Orcutt v. Pac. Coast R. Co., 85 id. 291. 



"• Denver & R. G. R. Co. v. Olsen, 4 Colo, 239; Same v. Stewart, i 

 Colo. App. 227. 



"' Isbell V. N. Y. & N. H. R. Co., 27 Conn. 393. 



This case was approved of in Needham v. San Fran. & S. J. R. Co.,- 

 supra, as exposing the "false reasoning of the New York courts." 



'"" Savannah, F. & W. R. Co. v. Geiger, 21 Fla. 669. 



"' Chic, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Cauflman, 38 111. 424; Rockford, R. L &. 

 St. L. R. Co. V. RafiFerty, 73 id. 58; Chic. & A, R. Co. v. Engle, 84 id.- 

 397. See § 70, supra. 



