WHERE FENCES AKK NECESSARY. HUB 



pany to show that it could not fence on account of danger to 

 its employees or inconvenience to the public.-*"' 



In a Texas case, however, it was held that where a fence 

 would not obstruct a street or highway, the company cannot 

 avoid liability by showing that a fence at that point would 

 cause much inconvenience to its servants in loading and un- 

 loading cars and in operating trains.^"* And, by maintain- 

 ing a fence for years, a company may be estopped to exoner- 

 ate itself for a failure to repair it on the ground that it would 

 be dangerous to its employees.^"- 



It is on the ground of inconvenience and danger that a 

 company is excused from erecting- fences in the grounds 

 around its station buildings, with the adjacent tracks and 

 switches.^"^ And it is no defence that the accident occurred 

 on station grounds, unless it appears that a fence would in- 

 terfere with business or public convenience.^''"' So, the mere 

 convenience of the company is not a sufficient reason for not 

 fencing parts of its station grounds which are not require'd 



'°° Toledo, St. L. & K. C. R, Co. v. Jackson, 3 Ind. App. 547; Indian- 

 apolis, D. & W. R. Co. V. Clay, 4 id. 282; Cox v. M., S. S. M. & A. R. 

 Co., 41 Minn. loi. 



"" Houston & T. C. R. Co. v. Simpson, 2 Tex. App. (Civ. Cas.) 591. 

 And see Bradley v. Buffalo, N. Y. & E. R. Co., 34 N. Y. 427; Wabash R. 

 Co. V. Howard, 57 111. App. 66, cited infra. 



'"'Chic. & E. I. R. Co. V. Giiertin, 115 111. 466. 



'"'Galena & C. U. R. Co. v. Griffin, 31 III. 303; Terre Haute & I. R. 

 Co. V. Grissom, 60 111. App. 114; Toledo, St. L. & K. C. R. Co. v. Frank- 

 lin, 53 id. 632; Indianapolis, P. & C. R. Co. v. Crandall, 58 Ind. 365; Ind., 

 B. & W. R. Co. V. Quick. 109 id. 295; Bechdolt v. Grand Rapids & 

 I. R. Co., 113 id. 343; Smithy z/. Chic., R. I. & P. R. Co., 34 la. 506; 

 Hooper v. Chic, St. P., M. & O. R. Co., 37 Minn. 52; Jennings v. St. 

 Joseph & St. L. R. Co., 37 Mo. App. 651; Chic., B. & Q. R. Co. v. 

 Hogan, 27 Neb. 801; Hyatt v. New York, L. E. & W. R. Co., 64 Hun 

 (N. Y.) 542; Moses r. Southern Pac. R. Co., 18 Oreg. 385; Gulf, C. & 

 S. F. R. Co. V. Wallace, 2 Tex. Civ. App. 270; Swanson v. Melton, 4 Tex. 

 App. (Civ. Cas.) 459: Roberts v. Great Western R. Co., 4 C. B. N. S. 

 506. 



'"Chouteau v. Hannibal & St. J. R. Co., 28 Mo. App. SS6; Peyton v. 

 Chic, R. I. & P. R. Co., 70 la. 522. .\nd see Brandenburg v. St. Louis 

 & S. F. R. Co., 44 Mo. App. 224. 



