674 INABILITY UNDER THE STATUTES. 



Many of the cases hold, however, that where the gate is put 

 in simply for the land-owner's use and convenience he, and 

 not the company, is liable for injuries to animals caused by its 

 being left open ; ^*^ unless it was left open by the company's 

 servants. ^*^ But this does not change the liability of the 

 company to third persons : as to them it must keep the gate 

 closed. ^''^ And in many cases the general rule is laid down 

 that the land-owner, and not the company, is responsible for 

 injuries to animals resulting from leaving gates open at pri- 

 vate crosings.^*" And the owner, by his agreement to main- 

 tain a gate, may, in any case, exonerate the company from all 

 liability to him not caused by gross negligence or an inten- 

 tional act.^*^ Where a gate was left open by a third person, 

 the company, in the absence of negligence, is not liable, at 

 least before it has notice of the fact or reasonable time for as- 

 certaining it : it is not expected to stand perpetual guard over 



"'■' Diamond Brick Co. v. N. Y. Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 58 Hun (N. Y.) 

 396; Bond V. Evansville & T. H. R. Co., 100 Ind. 301; Louisville, N. A. 

 & C. R. Co. V. Goodbar, 102 id. 596; Davis v. Wabash R. Co., 46 Mo. 

 App. 477; San Antonio & A. P. R. Co. v. Robinson (Tex. Civ. App.), 43 

 S. W. Rep. 76; Great Western R. Co. v. Vilaire, 11 U. C. C. P. 509. 



'" Spinner ?■. N. Y. Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 6 Hun (N. Y.) 600, 67 

 N. Y. 153. 



'* Wabash R. Co. v. Williamson, 104 Ind. 154; Galveston, H. & S. A. 

 R. Co. V. Wessendorf (Tex. Civ. App.), 39 S. W. Rep. 132. 



But now, in Indiana, as was said supra, the company is not liable for 

 any animals going through gates at private farm crossings unless they 

 were injured or killed by negligence: Hunt v. Lake Shore & M. S. R. 

 Co., 112 Ind. 69; Pennsylvania Co. v. Spaulding, Ibid. 47; Crum v. Con- 

 o\er (Ind. App.), 40 N. E. Rep. 644. 



In Kansas it has been held that the owner of a trespassing animal has 

 no greater rights than the land-owner: Adams v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. 

 Co., 46 Kan. 161; Rouse v. Osborne, 3 Kan. App. 139. 



""Hunt V. Lake Shore & M. S. R. Co., supra; Truesdale v. Jensen, 91 

 la. 312; Tyson v. K. & D. M. R. Co., 43 id. 207; Hook v. Worcester & 

 N. R. Co., 58 N. H. 251; Richardson v. Chic. & N. R. Co., 56 Wis. 347; 

 Rouse V. Osborne, 3 Kan. App. 139. 



■"Lake Erie & W. R. Co. v. Weisel, 55 O. St. 155. And see Tex. 

 & Pac. R. Co. V. Smith (Tex. Civ. App.), 41 S. W. Rep. 83. 



