216 DAMAGES WHERE HIRED HORSE HAS BEEN INJURED. 



noxious agent, is bound at his own risk to prevent it doing 

 injury to his neighbour. (ct) Again, a plaintiff hired of the 

 occupier of some Land adjoining the defendant's hne of railway 

 a stable for his horse. The horse was allowed to graze during 

 the day on the land. One night it escaped from the stable 

 on to the land, and thence, through a defective fence, on to 

 the defendant's line, where it was run over and killed.(6) 

 Thus also, where a herd of cattle were being driven at night 

 along an occupation road to some fields. The road crossed a 

 siding of the defendant's railway, on a level, and while the 

 cattle were crossing the siding, the defendant's servants negli- 

 gently sent some trucks down an incline into the siding, with 

 the result that the cattle were divided into two lots. The 

 animals being frightened, rushed awa^^ and the drovers after 

 them. The drovers were unable to recover six of the herd, 

 which were ultimately found lying dead or dying at another 

 part of the railway. There was no evidence to show when 

 the train had run over the cattle, but it appeared that the 

 animals had gone along the occupation road up to an 

 orchard about a quarter of a mile from the level-crossing, 

 had got into the garden through defect in the fences, and so 

 on to the line.(t!) In each of these two cases the defendants 

 were held liable. 



171. Damages where a Hired Horse has been Injured. 



— Where a horse has been injured by negligent driving, the 

 damages include the expenses of curing it and its keep from the 

 time of the accident till recovery, in addition to the difference 

 in its value due to the injury. Thus, where a horse so injured 

 was sent to a farrier's for treatment for six weeks, and at the 

 end of that time was damaged to the extent of £20, Mr. Justice 

 Coleridge held that the proper measure of damage was the 

 keep of the horse at the farrier's, the amount of the farrier's 

 bill, and the difference between the value of the horse at the 



(a) Croichnrst v. Amcrsham Burial Board, 1878, L.R. 4 Ex. D. 5. 



(b) Dawson v. Mid. Ihj. Co. 187'2, L.R. 8 Ex. 8. 



(c) Sneeshy v. L. <0 Y. By. Co. 1875, L.H. 1 (J.B.D. 42. 



