678 LlABIJvITY UNDKK THE STATUTJiS. 



Stances/*'* The company is not liable where live-stock jump 

 over a guard sufficient to turn ordinary cattle. ^"^ A com- 

 pany was held liable for an injury to a cow which escaped 

 through a culvert, though at the ordinary height of the 

 water the culvert was a sufficient barrier : it should have fenced 

 the line in front of the culvert or constructed a barrier. '^"^ 

 But a company acquiring a right of way over lands has been 

 held not to be bound to plank or cover a culvert or drain so 

 as to prevent cattle from getting fastened therein, and not to 

 be resppnsible for killing a cow thus fastened, if it was duly 

 diligent.^^^ 



Where a statute provided that any cattle-guard which 

 should be approved by the commissioner of railroads should 

 be sufficient, it was held not to be necessary that the commis- 

 sioner should approve every guard in use upon the various 

 railroads, but that a company might use a guard which he ap- 

 proved by name where such name applied to one of a definite 

 description. 1'- 



A company cannot for an unreasonable time permit its 

 guards to remain filled with snow or ice.'''^ In a Vermont 

 case, it was held that the test of the company's liability was 

 not whether the guards were "clear of snow or ice" but 

 whether, in their maintenance, the company was negligent. 



""Bait. & O. S. W. R. Co. v. Abbott, 59 111. App. 609'; Chic. B. & 

 Q. R. Co. 7j. Evans, 45 id. 79. 



'"'Chic, B. & Q. R. Co. V. Farrelly, 3 111. App. 60; Chic. & A. R. Co. 

 V. Utley, 38 111. 410. And see, to the same effect, Jones v. Chic, B. & 

 K. C. R. Co., 59 Mo. App. 137; Barnhart v. Chic, M. & St. P. R. Co., 

 97 la. 654. See, however, Green v. St. Paul, M. & M. R. Co., 60 Minn. 

 134- 



"° Keliher v. Conn. River R. Co., 107 Mass. 41T. 



'" Memphis & C. R. Co. v. Lyon, 62 Ala. 71. And see Whitskv v. 

 Chic. & G. T. R. Co., 62 Mich. 245. 



"' La Flamme v. Detroit & M. R. Co., 109 Mich. 509. 



™ Indiana, B. & W. R. Co. v. Drum, 21 111. App. 331 ; Dunnigan v. 

 Chic & N. R. Co., 18 Wis. 28. And see Chic, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Ken- 

 nedy, 22 111. App. 308: Robinson v. Chic, R. I. & P. R. Co., 79 la. 495; 

 Giger V. Chic. & N. R. Co., 80 id. 492. 



