GENERAL LIABILITY FOR FAILURE TO FENCE. i)oT 



required to fence where a pond, embankment, etc., is a suffi- 

 cient protection.^^ 



Tlie company may be responsible, under certain circum- 

 stances, for the erection of a barbed-wire fence on which a 

 frightened animal is injured f^ as well as for a failure to fence 

 resulting in an injury to an animal by running into a barbed- 

 wire fence.** 



The mere fact that the adjacent owner has built a fence 

 is no excuse for the company's failure to do so.'^ But it has 

 been held that the company may avail itself of the land- 

 owner's fence, if it is a suitable one, and that the fact that no 

 compensation was paid for the right of way will not prevent 

 its joining fences.*" The fact that the company's fence was 

 joined on to the land-owner's fence creates no legal implica- 

 tion, however, that the latter had assumed any obligation to^ 

 aid in keeping it up.*^ 



It is not sufificient that the company erect a lawful fence: 

 reasonable diligence must be used in keeping it in repair.^* 



'' Veerhusen v. Chic. & N. R. Co., 53 Wis. 689. Arid see Ryan v. Great 

 S. & W. R. Co., 32 L. R. Ir. 15. 



" Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Upton, 18 111. App. 605. 



^ Mo. Pac. R. Co. V. Gill, 49 Kan. 441. And see Savage v. Chic, M. & 

 St. P. R, Co., 31 Minn. 419. 



Otherwise, where the company is not required to fence: St Louis, L 

 M. & S. R. Co. V. Ferguson, 57 Ark. 16. 



=" Louisville, N. A. & C. R. Co. v. White, 94 Ind. 257; Norfolk & W. R. 

 Co. V. McGavock, 90 Va. 507; San Antonio & A. P. R. Co. v. Peterson, 

 8 Tex. Civ. App. 367. And see Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Gabbert, 

 34 Kan. 132. 



" Haxton v. Pittsburgh, C. & St. L. R. Co., 26 O. St. 214. 



" Busby V. St. Louis, K. C. & N. R. Co., 81 Mo. 43- 



'"Lemmon v. Chic. & N. R. Co., 32 la. 151; Chic. & N. R. Co. v. 

 Barrie, 55 111. 226; Grand Rapids & Ind. R. Co. v. Monroe, 47 Mich. 152; 

 Lake Erie & W. R. Co. v. Fishback, 5 Ind. App. 403- 



In Antisdel v. Chic. & N. R. Co., 26 Wis. 14S, a high degree of diligence 

 is said to be necessary, not ordinary diligence. 



The evidence of negligence in repairing is for the jury: Graves v. Chic, 

 M. & St. P. R. Co., 47 Minn. 429- 

 42 



