TO WHAT OWNERS THE COMPANY IS LIABLE. 665 



tain places, and it neglects to do so, the owners of animals 

 which get upon the track through such neglect and are in- 

 jured may recover against the company, although the ani- 

 mals were not lawfully on the land from which they escaped 

 on to the railway line." ^® 



In New York a company is liable for an injury to any ani- 

 mal by its agents or engines, owing to a failure to fence, 

 whether the owner of the animal is an adjoining proprietor or 

 not.''' It is not liable for injuries to animals caused by them- 

 selves by falling into a hole, etc., when they stray on an un- 

 fenced track through land not belonging to the plaintifl.'^® 

 But it is liable for injuries to animals caused by themselves 

 when they belong to an adjoining proprietor or one using his 

 land by his license, as the failure to fence is in that case the 

 neglect of a statutory obligation due to the plaintiff.'^® The 

 company is compelled to fence even where it owns the adjoin- 

 ing land, unless there is some physical barrier that will keep 

 animals ofif.*" 



In Massachusetts it was held in an early case that the fenc- 

 ing statute was designed for the safety of the public and the 

 protection of all domestic animals whether rightfully or 

 wrongfully out of their owner's enclosure, and that the com- 

 pany was, accordingly, liable though the cattle killed had been 

 trespassing on the adjacent land.®^ But in a later case it was 

 said that the above case was decided under a statute of Con- 

 necticut and did not decide that the plaintiff's negligence 



" IS Can. L. Times, 149. Article by R. M. Macdonald. 



" Corwin v. N. Y. & E. R. Co., 13 N. Y. 42. 



So, where an animal was wrongfully in a highway: Waldron v. Rens- 

 selaer & S. R. Co. 8 Barb. (N. Y.) 390. 



See, also, the cases cited in § 134, supra. 



" Knight V. N. Y., L. E. & W. R. Co., 99 N. Y. 25. 



" Graham v. Delaware & H. Can. Co., 46 Hun (N. Y.) 386; French 

 V. Western N. Y. & P. R. Co., 72 id. 469- 



™ Klock V. N. Y. Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 62 Hun (N. Y.) 291. 



" Browne v. Providence, H. & F. R. Co., 12 Gray (Mass.) 55- See the 

 -unfavorable comments on this case in i Redf. Rys. (6th ed.) S30- 



