DAMAGES. 649 ; 



compensation.**^ It is the owner's duty to use reasonable 

 efforts to prevent loss and reduce the damage as much as 

 possible, and where the stock are available after the injury, 

 he cannot abandon them and then claim their full value.**" 

 He can recover only to the extent of the injury, and need not 

 surrender the injured animal to the company.*^" Compen- 

 sation for the care of an animal between the time of its injury 

 and death cannot be recovered in addition to the value of the 

 animal.*"^ 



Damages for the non-thriving of cattle owing to the con- 

 struction of a railroad through the pasture in which they are 

 feeding are not too remote to be recovered.*^^ But where 

 no recovery is sought for lack of business, the fact that the 

 owner is a dairyman cannot be considered in assessing dam- 

 ages for killing cows.**^ Nor can the plaintiff recover for a 

 severe nervous shock and mental pain and anxiety caused by 

 her horse's being frightened by the company's unlawful act 

 and running away.*^* 



Exemplary damages are allowed, if the animal was in.jured 

 -or killed through gross negligence or wilfulness.**^ 



Statutes allowing a reasonable attorney's fee to be re- 

 covered in an action brought against a railroad company for 

 an injury to or the death of an animal have been held in some 

 jurisdictions to be constitutional,*®* and, in others, to be un- 



**" English V. Mo. Pac. R. Co., 73 Mo. App. 232. 



"^ Harrison v. Mo. Pac. R. Co., 88 Mo. 625. 



"^ Jackson v. St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co., 74 Mo. 526. 



"' Cully V. Louisv. & N. R. Co. (Ky.), 41 S. W. Rep. 21. 



^^ Bait. & O. R. Co. V. Thompson, 10 Md. 76, cited in § 131, supra. 



"^ Parrin v. Mont. Cent. R. Co. (Mont.), 56 Pac. Rep. 3iS- 



■^ Kalen v. Terra Haute & I. R. Co., 18 Ind. App. 202. 



'°° Vicksburg & J. R. Co. v. Patton, 31 Miss. 156; Indianapolis, P. & 

 "C. R. Co. V. Mustard, 34 Ind. 50. 



™ Peoria, D. & E. R. Co. v. Duggan, 109 111. 537; Central Branch Un. 

 Pac. R. Co. V. Nichols, 24 Kan. 242; Kan. Pac. R. Co. v. Mower, 16 id. 

 .573; Jacksonville, T. & K. W. R. Co. v. Prior, 34 Fla. 271; Briggs v. 

 rSt. Louis & S. F. R. Co., in Mo. 168; Perkins v. St. Louis, I. M. & S. 

 :R. Co., 103 id. 52; 111. Cent. R. Co. v. Crider, 91 Tenn. 489- And see 49 



