672 LIABILITY UNDER THE STATUTES. 



suits on the gate on which the animal was injured and was 

 of the saiTie kind that was in general use elsewhere, was held 

 not to be evidence of negligence.^^** The question as to 

 fastenings is whether they are reasonably sufficient and, if not, 

 if the stock got on the track and were killed by reason thereof, 

 and also whether such fastenings would be considered safe 

 by a man of ordinary prudence.^ ^® Where a gate has not a 

 statutory latch, the rule that the company should have a rea- 

 sonable time in which to discover its condition is not appli- 

 cable.'^" And, in general, where there was a defect in the 

 construction of the gate, no notice need be shown.'^' 



The duty to maintain fences with gates at crossings is 

 wholly independent of the duty to erect and maintain such 

 crossings: the former may exist whether the latter does or 

 not.'^^ Where the statute makes it the duty of the company 

 to construct and maintain safe crossings over its track, it is 

 liable to a traveller whose mule takes fright while driven over 

 a bridge across the track and, in consequence of the absence 

 of a railing where one is reasonably required, is thrown from 

 the bridge and injured.'^" 



The variance in the decisions on the question of the duty 

 of erecting fences and gates at private crossings extends to 

 the question of responsibility in keeping such gates in repair 

 and closed. It is held in many cases that such responsibility 

 rests with the company.'^* The latter is entitled to a reason- 



'"^ Great Western R. Co. v. Davies, 39 L. T. N. S. 475. 



"" Payne v. Kansas City, St. J. & C. B. R. Co., 72 la. 214. 



"' Duncan v. St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co., 91 Mo. 67. 



'" Chic, B. & Q. R. Co. V. Finch, 42 111. App. 90. 



"' Murphy v. Grand Trunk R. Co., i Ont. 619. 



^^ Georgia R. & Bkg. Co. v. Mayo, 92 Ga. 223. 



''* Wabash R. Co. v. Perbex, S7 HI- App. 62; Wait v. Burlington, C. R. 

 & N. R. Co., 74 la. 207; Morrison v. Kansas City, St. J. & C. B. R. Co., 

 27 Mo. App. 418; Marfell v. South Wales R. Co., 8 C. B. N. S 525. 



A section hand may recover for injuries to his cattle caused by the com- 

 pany's failure to close a gate, though he know it to be open,— it not 

 being his duty to close it except under orders: May v. Chic. & N R Co. 

 (Wis.), 79 N. W. Rep. 31. 



