ANIMALS RUNNING AT LARGE, ETC. 625* 



of the existence of another crossing near is admissible to 

 show contributory negligence.^"^ 



The fact that the owner had previously taken his animals 

 over the company's right of way will not prevent his re- 

 covery.^'*^ jj- jg otherwise where he knowingly permits them, 

 to be on the crossing; '^"^ or allows them to linger by the. 

 track till they become unmanageable; ^°* or rushes his cattle 

 over, after warning, even though the statutory signals were, 

 not given; ^"^ or rides his mule away from the road and on. 

 to and along the track.^** 



The fact that the animals were running at large in a lane 

 whence they might trespass is not evidence of contributory 

 negligence; ^"'^ nor is it negligent for the owner, superin- 

 tending land on the sides of a highway, to permit his dog 

 to patrol the land in order to keep ofif trespassers, as a result 

 of which it is run over owing to the negligence of a street 

 railway company; ^"^ nor is the owner of cattle killed in a 

 pasture guilty of contributory negligence simply because the 

 pasture was made after the road.^"^ 



There is no contributory negligence necessarily in trying-; 

 to escape the danger by an act in itself dangerous.^^" And- 

 where the plaintifif's decedent, in endeavoring to prevent his 

 horse's escape, was thrown on the track and killed, the fact 

 that he incurred great risk from his own horse and took it 

 was held not to show contributory negligence.*^^ But where 



"" Harper v. Mo., K. & T. R. Co., 70 Mo. App. 604. 

 "" Toledo, St. L. & K. C. R. Co. v. Jackson, 5 Ind. App. 547; Louis- 

 ville, E. & St. L. R. Co. V. Hart, 2 id. 130. 

 "" Connyers v. Sioux City & P. R. Co., 78 la. 410. 

 "" Coughtry v. Willamette St. R. Co., 21 Oreg. 245. 

 °" Ohio & Miss. R. Co. v. Eaves, 42 HI. 288. 

 °°" Nashv., C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Spence, 99 Tenn. 218. 

 "" Orcutt V. Pac. Coast R. Co., 85 Cal. 291. 

 ™ Meisch v. Rochester Elec. R. Co., 72 Hun (N. Y.) 604. 

 "" Harmon v. Columbia & G. R. Co., 32 S. C. 127. 

 '" Lincoln Rapid Transit Co. v. Nichols, 37 Neb. 332. 

 "' Butler V. Milwaukee & St. P. R. Co., 28 Wis. 487- 

 See Flagg v. Chic, D. & C. G. T. J. R. Co., 96 Mich. 30. 

 40 



