198 INJURIES TO ANIMALS ON HIGHWAYS. 



effect of its own negligence and that of a third person." The 

 question of the municipahty's negligence is one for the jury." 

 But where a frightened horse rushed into an unfenced pond 

 it was held that under the circumstances the defendants were 

 not liable, the court saying: "The precise limits of liability 

 where the element of an unruly or frightened horse enters into 

 the causes of an accident on a public highway, have been the 

 subject of controversy and some difficulty. It is conceded 

 that our cases hold the township authorities to a more exact- 

 ing rule than obtains in some other States, but none of them 

 go so far as to say that they must make the roads safe for run- 

 away horses. . . . Apart from the fright of the horse, there 

 was nothing to show any danger to travel from the existence 

 of the pond and the absence of a fence between it and the 

 road. It is in this respect that the present differs from the 

 line of cases of which Plymouth Tp. v. Graver^* ... is the 

 exemplar. There, as here, the roadbed was without defect, 

 but it was along and immediately adjacent to the tracks of 

 the railroad, where the passage of trains had a natural ten- 

 dency to frighten horses. The road, therefore, as it existed, 

 contained the elements of danger to ordinary travel ; and this 

 court held that it was the duty of the township to anticipate 

 and provide against such danger. The element of danger 

 to ordinary travel is wanting in the present case ; and there- 

 fore the jury should have been instructed that there was no 

 sufficient evidence on which to hold the defendants liable." ^^ 

 So a pile of stones on a roadside will not render a borough 

 liable for an injury to a person thrown upon them by the fall 

 of a horse he is riding, where the fright of the horse is caused 



Yoders v. Amwell Tp., 172 id. 447; Cage v. Franklin Tp., 8 Pa. Super. 

 Ct. 8g. 



'^° Burrell Tp. v. Uncapher, 117 Pa. St. 353. 



" Ewing V. Versailles Tp., 146 Pa. St. 309; Bitting v. Maxatawny Tp., 

 180 id. 357. 



" 125 Pa. St. 24, cited supra. 



"Horstick v. Dunkle, 145 Pa. St. 220, 229. And see Card v. Columbia 

 Tp., 191 id. 254. 



