304 NEGLIGENCE IN THE USE OF HORSES, ETC. 



" Tliougli, not without licsitation, I have come to the 

 conckision that the plaintiffs are entitled to have the verdict 

 and judgment entered for them. Looking at the undis- 

 puted facts in the case, I think it is clear that, although 

 the immediate cause of the accident was the kicking of the 

 Mare, still the unauthorized and dangerous appearance of 

 the van and plough on the side of the highway was, within 

 the meaning of the law, the proximate cause of the acci- 

 dent. It cannot, I think, be laid down that no one is 

 entitled to recover damages for an injury caused by a 

 kicking horse, in the absence of any knowledge on his part 

 that it is such. In the present case it must be taken that 

 the deceased was not aware that the horse was a kicker. 

 Then was the kicking which caused the death a natural 

 and necessary consequence of the act complained of ? I 

 think, upon the whole, that it was. The van was there, 

 and it in fact frightened the deceased's Mare so that she 

 shied and swerved to run away, and, having got one wheel 

 on the footpath, kicked violently, and within 150 yards 

 fell and injured the deceased so that he died. The whole 

 transaction is within a few seconds, and originates in the 

 fright of the Mare caused by the van. I think it cannot 

 be laid down as having been the duty of the deceased to 

 abstain from driving the Mare. On the other hand, it 

 cannot be laid down as the right of the defendant to 

 assume that no nervous or runaway or kicking Horse would 

 come along the highwa3^ It is only in the case of Horses 

 liable to be frightened that any danger exists, and where 

 a Horse has once been frightened by a dangerous apparition 

 unlawfully placed on the highway, running away and 

 kicking can hardly be considered unusual or unnatural 

 consequences of the fright. The wrongdoer has no right 

 to lay down the measure of his own wrong, or to limit the 

 free use of the highway to Horses which shall only shy 

 when frightened and do no further mischief. On the 

 whole, I think that the finding of the jury only amounts 

 to this, that the accident was caused by the van, but that 

 if the Horse was not a kicker it would not have happened. 

 Looking at the finding and the facts together, I come to 

 the conclusion that the plaintiffs were entitled to the 

 verdict. I therefore dii-ect it to be entered for them for 

 the amount assessed by the jury, and give judgment for 

 that amount with costs" {k). 



(k) Harris v. Mobbs, L. R., 3 Ex. L. R., 3 Q. B. D. 327 ; 47 L. J., 

 D. 268; SOL. T.,N.S. 164; 27 W. Q. B. 427; 38 L. T., N. S. 454. 

 R. 154 ; and Reo Clark v. Cliambers, 



