266 ESSENTIALS OF VETERINARY LAW 



not liable for the death of a colt playing by the 

 side of its mother which was being led along the 

 road, though the death came from the cuts in- 

 flicted by the barbs.^® Where a railroad company 

 erected a barbed wire fence between its property 

 and adjacent land, it was held liable for the death 

 of sheep occasioned by the fence.^''' 



214. Frightening Animals. The question as to 

 the right of action against one for frightening- 

 animals is one which has resulted in an immense 

 mass of litigation. It seems to us that it is one 

 which must be settled largely by the special case. 

 An automobile may properly be upon the public 

 road, and a horse may be frightened thereby, but 

 if the horse chances to be unusually nervous the 

 autoist would not be liable. On the other hand, 

 an autoist running at a high rate of speed by a 

 horse should be held strictly liable for any dam- 

 age which may result. A piece of paper acci- 

 dentally blown out of a vehicle, thus frightening 

 a passing horse, might not imply liability, while 

 if thrown carelessly before a horse which is fright- 

 ened thereby, it would probably be considered as 

 a creation of liability. 



215. Liability for Injuries on the Public High- 

 way. A distinction must be made between streets 

 and bridges which are under the control of munic- 

 ipalities, and those which are simply public prop- 

 erty. Where an animal passing along a public 

 highway is injured as a result of some defect in 

 the road, or obstruction there placed, the person 



56Hillyard v. Grand Trunk E. E. & N. Co., 35 Ore. 79, .oG 

 Ry. Co., 8 Ont. 583. Pae. 1011. 



" Siglin V, Coos Bay, E. & 



