CEOSSINGS ; GATES. . 673 



able time in which to discover that the gate is open or out of 

 repair ;^^^ and the plaintiff must have been free from negli- 

 gence in the use thereof: ^^^ if he persistently keeps the gate 

 open, the company may be released from liability. '^^ Rea- 

 sonable care and diligence only are required on the part of the 

 company: ^** it need not keep a patrol.'^" But it is not re- 

 lieved from liability by the fact that the animal had escaped 

 from control.^*" Where a horse strayed on another's land 

 and then on the track through a barway in a fence, which had 

 been opened long before, though it did not appear by whom, 

 the company was held liable.-'*^ Where gates have been 

 erected where a company was not obliged to put them, and 

 are out of order, the company is bound to take more than 

 ordinary precautions to prevent the public, accustomed to 

 rely on the gates, from being injured, and is liable for neglect 

 to do so.*" 



'"Nicholson v. Atchison, f. & S. F. R. Co., 55 Mo. App. 593; Wait v. 

 Burlington, C. R. & N. R. Co., supra; Hungerford v. Syracuse, B. & 

 N. Y. R. Co., 46 Hun (N. Y.) 339; Chic, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Sierer, 

 13 III. App. 261; Lake Erie & W. R. Co. v. Beam, 60 id. 68; 111. Cent. 

 R. Co. V. Arnold, 47 111. i73- 



""Magilton V. N. Y. Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 11 N. Y. App. Div. 373; 

 Chic, B. & Q. R. Co. V. Dannel, 48 111. App. 251. 



And he is responsible for the negligence of his servants: Ranney v. 

 Chic, B. & Q. R. Co., 59 HI- App. 130. 



"'Manwell v. Burlington, C. R. & N. R. Co., 80 la. 662. And see 

 Bartlett v. Dubuque & S. C. R. Co., 20 id. 188; Tyson v. K. &. D. M. 

 R. Co., 43 id. 207; Hook v. Worcester & N. R. Co., 58 N. H. 251; Rich- 

 ardson V. Chic & N. R. Co., 56 Wis. 347; Indianapolis, P. & C. R. Co. v. 

 Shimer, 17 Ind. 295. 



'" Peoria, D. & E. R. Co. v. Babbs, 23 111. App. 454- And see Mears 

 V. Chic. & N. R. Co., 103 la. 203. 



'"Chic, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Sierer, 13 HI- App. 261. 



'*■ Taft V. N. Y., P. & B. R. Co., i57 Mass. 297. 



'" Connolly v. Cent. Vt. R. Co., 4 N. Y. App. Div. 221. Herrick, J., 

 dissented on the ground that a company "should not be liable to the 

 same extent for an open gate or barway provided for the private use 

 of adjoining proprietors that it is when a portion of the fence is broken 

 down, burned or otherwise destroyed." This case was affirmed in 52 

 N. E, Rep. 1 124. 



"" Fleming v. Can. Pac. R. Co., 31 N. B. 318. 

 43 



