LEAVING OBSTACLES IN EOAD. l73 



for the plaintiff, (a) Wliere an action is brought against the 

 owner of a dog, in consequence of its having clone injury to 

 sheep or cattle, it is not necessary for the pursuer to prove a 

 previous propensity in the dog to injure sheep and cattle,(6) 

 and under a similar statute in England, horses and mares 

 have been held included under "sheep and cattle." (c) The 

 occupier of the house or premises, in which the sheep and 

 cattle have been injured, is considered the owner of the dog 

 unless he can prove the contrary, and that it was kept on his 

 premises without his sanction or kno\vledge.((?.) 



139. Leaving Obstacles in the Road. — One who negligently 

 leaves anything on the road, which should not be there, is 

 liable if a horse takes fright from it and damage be sustained. 

 Thus, to leave on the road a fire-basket, (e) or van attached 

 to a steam plough, on the grassy side of the highway,(/) or 

 a heap of manure,(^) lime,(/i) or stones ('i) on the road, are 

 acts amounting to negligence. But " a party is not to cast 

 himself upon an obstruction which has been made by the 

 fault of another, and avail himself of it, if he do not himself 

 use common and ordinary caution to be in the right "(y); 

 and where an ass was left fettered in the highway, and killed 

 by the driver of a waggon, Baron Parke observed : — 

 " Although the ass may have been wrongfully there, still the 

 defendant was bound to go along the road at such a pace as 

 Avould be likely to prevent mischief. Were this not so, a 

 man might justify the driving over goods left on a public 



(a) Read v. King, Guildhall, 1858, cited Oliphant, p. 351 ; see also Wakeman v. 

 Robinson, 1823, 1 Bing. 213. 

 (i) 26 & 27 Vict. c. 100, § 1. 



(c) Wright V. Pearson, 1869, L.R. 4 Q.B. 582. 



(d) 26 & 27 Vict. c. 100, § 2. 



(e) Lambert v. Harrison, Guildhall, 1853, cited Oliphant, 302. 

 (/) Harris v. Mobbs, 1878, L.R. 3 Ex. D. 268. 



(9) Gassiot v. Carpmeal, 1852, 19 L.T. 64, 94. 

 (h) M'Lean v. Russell, 1850, 12 D. 887. 

 (i) Gunn V. Gardiner, 1820, 2 Mur. 194. 



ij) Lord Ellenborough in Butterfield v. Forrester, 1809, 11 East. 69 ; see also 

 Chief- Justice Cockburn in Clark v. Chambers, 1878, L.R. 3 Q.B.D. 327. 



