214 DAMAGES, DELICT AND QUASI-DELICT. 



and that the death was the proximate and natural result 

 thereof.(a) 



As illustrating the principle of liability attaching for only- 

 such damage as is the natural result of a wrongful act, the 

 following cases may also be referred to : — Where the gate- 

 keeper of a railway company had invited the plaintiff to drive 

 over a level crossing when it was dangerous to do so, and the 

 jury, although an actual collision was avoided, assessed 

 damages for physical and mental injuries occasioned by the 

 fright, it was held that damages for a nervous shock or 

 mental injury caused by fright at an impending collision 

 were too remote. (6) In another case a horse had strayed 

 on a highway and kicked a child, and the plaintiff sued for 

 damages. There was no evidence why it kicked the child 

 further than that it occurred through no fault of the child. 

 The Court assumed the horse to be a trespasser, and held 

 that the owner would be liable for all the natural results of 

 such trespass, such as eating grass or trampling down the 

 soil ; but they regarded the act of kicking a child as an act 

 unnatural to a horse Avhich was not known to be vicious ; and, 

 there being no proof that the owner knew the horse was 

 vicious, he was held not liable for the injury. (c) This case 

 may be contrasted with two other cases where the sufferer 

 was a horse instead of a child. A mare belonging to a 

 defendant strayed through a gate which he was bound to 

 keep in repair and got into plaintiff's field. A conflict 

 between the plaintiff's horse and mare ensued, in which the 

 mare kicked the plaintiff's horse and killed it. It was held 

 that it was a natural consequence of horses meeting that the 

 one might kick the other, and as there was sufficient evi- 

 dence of negligence in leaving the gate unfenced, the defend- 

 ant must be liable for what ensued as the approximate cause 

 of the negligence. The direction of the judge to the jury, 



(a) Harris v. Mohhs, 1878, L.R. 3 Ex. D. 268. 



(6) Victorian Ry. Corns, v. Coullas, 1888, L.R. (P.C.) 13 App. Ca. 222, 



(c) Cox V. Burbridcje, 1SG3, 13 C.B., N.S. 430. 



