054 LIABILITY UNDER THE STATUTES. 



the track;" nor for injuries to animals falling into wells o 

 pits dug in the company's right of way without their knowl 

 edge or consent.'" And where the animal went on the track 

 caught its foot in a hole and broke its leg, the injury was con 

 sidered too remote and the company was held not liable.*' 

 But where an animal frightened by a train runs on an un- 

 fenced track and is injured, the failure to fence is the prox 

 imate cause of the injury.'" 



It is impracticable here to consider all the statutes of the 

 various States on the subject of fences. Such matters wili 

 be treated of only as are of more or less general importance, 



The liability of the company for an injury resulting from 

 its failure to perform its statutory duty of fencing is one that 

 exists irrespective of further negligence on its own part 

 or contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiflf." 



° Sinard z'. Southern R. Co., loi Tenn. 473. 



" III. Cent. R. Co. v. Carraher, 47 111. 333. 



The statute was said to be "designed to protect the travelling commun- 

 ity from accidents occasioned by stock getting upon the road and also 

 to prevent damage to such stock. They were not required to fence their 

 right of way to prevent cattle from falling into wells, pits or morasses." 



See, also, Jones v. Western N. C. R. Co., 95 N. C. 328, where, however, 

 there was no statute in question. 



"Nelson v. Chic, M. & St. P. R. Co., 30 Minn. 74. 



" Maher f. Winona & St. P. R. Co., 31 Minn. 401. 



" McKinney v. Ohio & M. R. Co., 22 Ind. 99; Louisville, N. A. & C, 

 R. Co. V. Whitesell, 68 id. 297; Williams v. New Albany & S. R. Co., ; 

 id. Ill; Lafayette & I. R. Co. v. Shriner, 6 id. 141; Chic. & E. R. Co. v. 

 Brannegan, 5 Ind. App. 540; Terre Haute & I. R. Co. v. Schaefer, Ibid 

 86: Cary v. St. Louis, K. C. & N. R, Co., 60 Mo. 209; Miles v. Hannibal 

 & St. J. R. Co., 31 id. 407; Smith v. St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co. 

 91 id. 58; Talbot v. Minneapolis, St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 82 Mich. 

 66; Central Branch Un. Pac. R. Co. v. Nichols, 24 Kan. 242; Beckei 

 V. New York, L. E. & W. R. Co., 10 N. Y. Suppt. 413; Walsh v. 

 Virginia & T. R. Co., 8 Nev. no; Cine, N. O. & T. P. R. Co. v. 

 Stonecipher, 95 Tenn. 311; Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. v. Keith, 74 Tex. 287 

 Same v. Hudson, 77 id. 494; Same v. Cash, 8 Tex. Civ. App. 569: 

 Norfolk & W. R. Co. v. Johnson, 91 Va. 661 ; Jolliffe v. Brown, 14 Wash 

 i.SS; McCall V. Chamberlain, 13 Wis. 637; Heller v. Abbot, 79 id. 409 



See, also, as to contributory negligence, the cases cited in § 134, supra 



