658 LIABILITY UNDEK THE STATUTES. 



This involves the duty of continuous inspection.*® But a 

 company was held not liable where a fence was destroyed by 

 fire after daily inspection had been made and the fact was not 

 known till the stock were killed.*" In England, a com- 

 pany which erects a fence more than five years after the open- 

 ing of its road to separate it from the adjoining land is bound 

 to maintain the fence and is liable for an injury to an animal: 

 escaping upon the track because of the defective condition 

 of the fence, though the statute provides that the company 

 shall not be compelled to make any further or additional 

 accommodation works after five years from the opening of 

 the railway.*^ 



The company is responsible only where it has notice of the 

 defect and reasonable time in which to make repairs.*^ It is 

 liable where a prudent man would have had time in which to 

 discover the defect.*^ Where the land-ovmer knows that the 

 fence is defective and fails to notify the company, he cannot 



-■' Studer v. Buffalo & L. H. R. Co., 25 U. C. Q. B. 160. 



Whether an inspection every two days is sufficient diligence is for the 

 jury: Evans v. St. Paul & S. C. R. Co., 30 Minn. 489. 



*" Toledo, C. S. & D. R. Co. v. Eder, 45 Mich. 329. 



" Dixon V. Great Western R. Co., [1897] i Q. B. 300, dismissing the ap- 

 peal from [1896] 2 Q. B. ^^iZ- 



" Hodge '.'. N. Y. Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 27 Hun (N. Y.) 394; Clardy 

 V. St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co., 73 Mo. 576; Young v. Hannibal & St. 

 J. R. Co., 82 id. 427; Aylcsworth v. Chic, R. 1. & P. R. Co., 30 la. 459; 

 Davis V. Chic, R. I. & P. R. Co., 40 id. 292; Brentner v. Chic, M. & St. 

 P. R. Co., 58 id. 62s; 111. Cent. R. Co. v. Swearingen, 47 111. 206; Chic. 

 & Alton R. Co. ;■. Umphenour, 69 id. 198; Same v. Saunders, 85 id. 288; 

 Toledo & Wabash R. Co. v. Daniels, 21 Ind. 256; Indianapolis, P. & C. 

 R. Co. V. Truitt, 24 id. 162. 



But see Studer v. Buffalo & L. H. R. Co., 25 U. C. Q. B. 160, where the 

 company was held liable though reasonable time to repair had not elapsed. 

 See also Pittsburgh, C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Smith, 38 O. St. 410. 



As to reasonable time to discover defects, see Varco v. Chic, M. & St. 

 P. R. Co., 30 Minn. 18; Mayfield v. St. Louis & S. F. R. Co., 91 Mo. 296; 

 Foster t;. St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co., 44 Mo. App. 11; Galveston, H. 

 & S. A. R. Co. V. Walter (Tex. Civ. App.), 25 S. W. Rep. 163. 



" Lainiger v. Kansas City, St. J. & C. B. R. Co., 41 Mo. App. 165. And 

 see Indianapolis & St. L. R. Co. v. Hall, 88 111. 368. 



