ANIMALS RUNNING AT LARGE, ETC. 627 



ing no effort to drive them over the further track, it w^as held 

 that he could not recover for one of the cattle killed because 

 of the engineer's failure to keep a proper lookout.'*"^ And 

 where the plaintiff drove four horses across the track without 

 halter or reins and they were run into and killed, he was 

 held guilty of contributory negligence.^^^ 



An owner who allowed his stock to graze near the track 

 in the charge of a fourteen-year-old girl was held not guilty 

 of contributory negligence as a matter of law.^^^ So, where 

 a boy was in charge of a cow which ran away and got on the 

 track by reason of defective cattle-guards.^" Nor was a 

 hackman negligent in having left his team in the care of a 

 fellow hackman, where it was afterwards frightened by a train 

 and ran away.^^° 



Driving a horse at a forbidden rate of speed is negligence 

 on the part of the driver if it contributes directly to the acci- 

 dent. ^^^ And it is negligence for the driver of a fire-depart- 

 ment truck to approach a street on which cars run without 

 having his horses under such control that he can stop them, 

 even though he has, by ordinance, the right of way.^^^ 



It is contributory negligence, as a rule, to take animals 

 near the track or near cars under circumstances when they 

 are liable to be frightened; ^^^ though this does not always 



'" Bunnell v. Rio Grande W. R. Co., 13 Utah 314- 



'" Grand Trunk R. Co. v. Bourassa, 19 Leg. N. (Can.) 131. 



"» Hutchinson v. Chic, M. & St. P. R. Co., 9 S. D. 5. 



"'Phillips V. Can. Pac. R. Co., i Ma. no. 



''" Fritts V. N. Y. & N. E. R. Co., 62 Conn. 503. 



"=' Weller v. Chic, M. & St. P. R. Co., 120 Mo. 635. 



^■' Garrity v. Detroit Citizens' St. R. Co., 112 Mich. 369. 



'== Manchester, S. & L. R. Co. v. Woodcock, 25 L. T. N. S. 335; Louis- 

 ville & N. R. Co. V. Schmidt, 81 Ind. 264; Un. Pac. R. Co. v. Hutchinson, 

 39 Kan. 48s; Whitney v. Me. Cent. R. Co., 69 Me. 208; State v. Cumber- 

 land & P. R. Co. 87 Md. 183; Cornell v. Detroit Elec R. Co., 82 Mich. 

 495; Moore v. Kan. City & L R. T. R. Co., 126 Mo. 265; Pittsb. South. 

 R. Co. V. Taylor, 104 Pa. St. 306; Phila., W. & B. R. Co. v. Stinger, 78 

 id. 219; Hargis v. St. Louis, A. & T. R. Co., 75 Tex. 19; New Brunswick 

 R. Co. V. Vanwart, 17 Can. Sup. Ct. 35. 



