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.2*> 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 lable 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 
86 Hillyard v. Grand Trunk E.R. & N. Co., 35 Ore. 79, 56 
Ry. Co., 8 Ont. 583. Pae. 1011. 
57 Siglin v. Coos Bay, R. & 
