172 MAKING NOISES TO FRIGHTEN HORSE. 



sought to be made criminally responsible, (a) So, if a horse 

 escape from its stable, (?>) or through a gate the owner is 

 bound to repair, and it thereby does injury, he is liable,(c) 

 and similarl}^, if one break a young horse in a public 

 thoroughfare, he will be liable if damage ensue. 



138. Making Noises which Frighten Horse. — Where a 

 person negligently makes a noise, which frightens a horse, he 

 is liable for injury sustained through his wrongful act. Thus, 

 where an engine-driver blew off steam at a level crossing, with 

 the result of frightening horses waiting to cross, and the place 

 was one where there was considerable traffic, it was held to be 

 actionable negligence on the part of the company. (cZ) In 

 another case against a railway company, it appeared that the 

 plaintiffs were leaving a station belonging to the defendants, in 

 a carriage, when the horse was frightened by the sight and 

 sound of a locomotive encjine at the station, which was blow- 

 ing off steam, and the carriage was upset, and the plaintiffs 

 injured. It did not appear that the engine was defective, or 

 that it was used in an improper manner, or that the 

 apjjroach to the station was inconvenient, but the jury found 

 that the defendants were guilty of negligence in not screen- 

 ing the railway from the roadway to the station, and that 

 such negligence had caused the accident. It was held, on 

 appeal, that the defendants were not liable, as there was no 

 evidence of any obligation on their part to screen the rail- 

 way from the road.(e) And where a i:)lain tiff's horse took 

 fright and injured itself, in consequence of the defendant's 

 dogs barking at him, a verdict was obtained, with damages, 



(a) See Lord Young in Burton, cit. supra, p. 896. 

 (6) Michael v. Alcstrcc, 2 Lev. 172. 



(c) See Lee v. llilcy, 1865, 18 C.K, N.S. 722; Ellis v. Loftus Iron Co., 187^ 

 L.R. 10 C.P. 10, where the horse itself is thereby injured. 



(d) M. S. J. .b A. Ry. Co. v. FaJlarton, 1863, ]•! C.B., N.8. .54. 



{c) Slmkin V. /.. <(• N.-W. liy. Co., 1888, 21 Q.B.D. 453, and the strong doubt 

 expressed by Lord Fry to the judgment ; see also Jiamsden v. L. ifc 1'. Ry. Co., 

 1888, 53 J. P. 183, noise in the pump-house of a railway causing horses to bolt. 



