628 LIABILITY IRRESPECTIVE OF FENCING LAWS. 



necessarily prevent recovery.^^* The driver of horses going 

 near electric cars takes the risk of his horses being frightened 

 by the ordinary signals of the car.^^s ^^^ ^g is not guilty 

 of contributory negligence, as a matter of law, in driving on 

 a street traversed by such cars, though the space between 

 the track and a retaining wall is narrow.^^"' 



Voluntary drunkenness is no excuse for contributory neg- 

 Hgence and the drunkenness of the owner of an animal or his- 

 servant will, in many cases, bar recovery .^^^ 



Conversely, the owner of animals at large it liable to the 

 company for an injury caused to a train by coUision, where 

 he has been negligent in his care of his stock.^^® 



The rule of comparative negligence formerly prevailed in 

 Illinois. If the plaintiff's negligence was slight and the de- 

 fendant's gross in comparison, the former could recover; 

 otherwise, not.^^" And an instruction which authorized the 

 jury to find for the plaintiff if they found the defendant to 

 have been guilty of a greater degree of negligence than the 

 former was held erroneous.^^"' This is not the rule in 



"'* Nashua Iron & Steel Co. v. Worcester & N. R. Co., 62 N. H. 159^ 

 Wabash R. Co. v. Speer, 156 111. 245. 



And see Herrick v. Sullivan, 120 Mass. 576; Stamm v. South. R. Co.,. 

 I Abb. N. Cas. (N. Y.) 438; Carraher v. San Francisco Bridge Co., lOO- 

 Cal. 177; Flewelling v. Lewiston & A. H. R. Co., 89 Me. 585; Louisville, 

 N. A. & C. R. Co. V. Davis, 7 Ind. App. 222. 



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



^" Gibbons v. Wilkesbarre & S. St. R. Co., 155 Pa. St. 279. 



'"See Welty v. Indianapolis & V. R. Co., log Ind. 55; Cleveland, C, 

 C. & St. L. R. Co. V. Ducharme, 49 111. App. 520; Butcher v. W. Va. & 

 P. R. Co., 37 W. Va. 180. 



•"' Hannibal & St. J. R. Co. v. Kenney, 41 Mo. 271 ; Sinram v. Pitts- 

 burgh, F. W. & C. R. Co., 28 Ind 244; Annapolis & E. R. Co. v. Baldwin,. 

 60 Md. 88. 



""Chic, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Dickson, 88 111. 431; Rockford, R. L & St. 

 L. R. Co. V. Irish, 72 id. 404; Toledo, W. & W. R. Co, v. McGinnis, 71 id. 

 346; Chic. & N. R. Co. V. Harris, S4 id. 528; 111. Cent. R. Co. v. Middles- 

 worth, 43 id. 64; Same v. Goodwin, 30 id. 117. 



And see Fisher v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 21 Wis. 73; Galpin v^ 

 Chic. & N. R. Co., 19 id. 604. 



™ Wabash R. Co. v. Jones, 5 111. App. 607. 



