642 LIABILITY IRRESPECTIVE OF FENCING LAWS. 



that caused the injury was operated; *3i the direction in which 

 it was running;-'^- the speed at which it was going; *^* the 

 distance on the track that was visible.^^*-* Failure to give 

 signals is prima facie evidence of negligence.*^^ But the law 

 does not presume the injury to have been caused by the fail- 

 ure to signal.**" And evidence as to whether the stock 

 A\ould probably have been frightened off the track by sig- 

 nals has been held immaterial where there was a statutory 

 duty to signal.**^' Evidence that after the accident sign-posts 

 had been put up and whistles blown at the crossing is in- 

 admissible.**® So, of evidence that the company after the 

 accident took up planks at the crossing and replaced them 

 by new ones.**® An opinion of an engineer, as an expert, 

 that a whistle was blown unnecessarily is inadmissible.**" 



Imperfect light and fog at the time of the accident are 

 circumstances that the jury may take into consideration in 

 determining negligence.**^ The escape of electricity from a 

 street railway company's plant to the injury of a horse being 

 driven along the street is presumptive evidence of negli- 

 gence.- 



Where it is sought to lessen damages by showing that 

 some of the injured cattle would not have died but for want 



'=' Briggs V. St. Louis & S. F. R. Co., in Mo. i68. 



'"' Ohio & M. R. Co. V. Wrape, 4 Ind. App. 108. 



•^"Toledo, P. & W. R. Co. v. Deacon, 63 III. 91; Chic, B. & Q. R. Co. 

 V. Haggerty, 67 id. 113. See Voak v. North. Cent. R. Co., 75 N. Y. 320. 



"'Sheldon v. Chic., M. & St. P. R. Co. (S. D.), 62 N. W. Rep. 955; 

 Chic. & .A.. R. Co. T'. Legg, 32 111. App. 218; Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. v. 

 Washington, 49 Fed. Rep. 347. 



"'' Persinger v. Wabash, St. L. & P. R. Co., 82 Mo. 196, And see § 132, 

 supra. 



"' Chic. & A. R. Co. V. Hanley, 26 111. App. 351. 



*■■" Kendrick v. Chic. & A. R. Co., 81 Mo. 521. 



"" Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Bowen (Ky.), 39 S. W. Rep. 31. 



"* Payne v. Troy & B. R. Co., 9 Hun (N. Y.) 526. And see Hudson v. 

 Chic. & N. R. Co., 59 la. .s8i. 



*'" Chic. & E. R. Co. V. Cummings (Ind. App.), 53 N. E. Rep, ioa6. 



'" St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co. v. Vincent, 36 Ark. 451. 



"" Trenton Pass. R. Co. v. Cooper, 60 N. J. L. 219. 



