Question with Tort Law. Please help in any way possible.?

A statute requires railroads to fence their tracks that are construed as intended solely to prevent animals that stray onto the right-of-way from being hit by trains. B & A Railroad Company fails to fence its tracks. Two of Calvins cows wander onto the track. Nellie is hit by a train. Elsie is poisoned by weeds growing beside the track. For which cow(s), if any, is B & A Railroad Co. liable to Calvin?

Oh, look, a law student cheating. What a surprise!

The statute is understood as preventing cows being hit by trains; therefore the company is only liable for Nellie. Because poison weeds can grow anywhere, and the statute does not require control of weeds, they cannot be held responsible for poor Elsie.

(Note that, although it's not mentioned, there is also the question of whether the cows should have been there in the first place. If it can be shown that Calvin had a duty and the ability to prevent the cows from wandering on the tracks - for example, if there were an intervening property where the cows had no right to be - the tort could be invalid.)

Neither.

Calvin should have kept his cows under control.

((Also, no state has a law that says train tracks must be fenced. Can you image the mess it would make at all the crossings? If a fence is needed, it is the adjacent property owner who must put up the fence. Meaning Calvin.)

i just finished 1 qtr of business law and from what i got from the class RR would be liable for both