INJURIES FKOM FRIGHT AND DEFECT IN HIGHWAY. 199 



by the shooting of guns near the road and plenty of room 

 has been left for travel on the highway, which is not shown 

 to be either insufficient or defective. "The shooting was an 

 extraordinary circumstance for which the borough was in no 

 sense responsible and against the consequences of which they 

 were not bound to take precautions." ^° 



The decisions in Wisconsin seem to have gone through 

 somewhat the same process of change as those in Massachu- 

 setts, which they profess to follow. In Dreher v. Fitchburg^^ 

 it was held that an injury due in part to the breaking of an 

 axle and in part to a defect in the highway was one for which 

 a town was liable. The Maine cases are especially disap- 

 proved of, and those of Vermont and New Hampshire [to be 

 considered later] followed. In Houfe v. Fulton^- the prin- 

 ciple laid down in Palmer v. Andover^^ was adopted, and it 

 was held that where the plaintifif's horse suddenly stopped, 

 staggered, fell sideways and went over the side of a bridge 

 where there was no railing, the town was liable, there being 

 no negligence on the plaintiff's part. The court said : "The 

 question thus presented is by no means an easy one and, as 

 naturally might be expected, there is clear conflict of author- 

 ity upon it. It has undergone most thorough examination 

 in the courts of several States where the statutes are in all 

 material respects like our own, and with directly opposite re- 

 sults. In Maine it has been held in a series of decisions that 

 the town is not liable under such circumstances. ... In New 

 Hampshire and Vermont a broader construction has been 

 given to the statute in favor of the traveller, and a more ex- 

 tensive liability on the part of towns and cities been held to 

 be created by it. . . . The principle of these decisions has 

 been adopted by this court [citing Dreher v. Fitchburg, 

 supra]. ... In Massachusetts there seems to be some con- 

 flict of decision upon the point. . . . The only exception to 

 the principles thus laid down, as yet to be found in the re- 



™ Kiefifer v. Hummelstown, 151 Pa. St. 304. 



'^ 22 Wis. 675. " 29 Wis. 296. " 2 Cush. (Mass.) 600, cited supra. 



