202 INJURIES TO ANIMALS ON HIGHWAYS. 



control of the frightened animal, even though he should fail, 

 the county would not be liable for its negligence, as the in- 

 jury must be attributed to the viciousness of the horse, rather 

 than to the defect in the highway. But if no such time inter- 

 venes, but the fright and accident are concurrent events, then 

 the county would be liable, for the very purpose of the law 

 in requiring dangerous approaches to bridges to be protected 

 by a sufficient railing is to guard against just such accidents, 

 rendered unavoidable by reason of their suddenness." ^^ 



In an earlier case it was held that the frightening of horses 

 by calves coming out of bushes was the proximate cause of an 

 injury resulting to them, and not the narrowness of the road, 

 where the accident might have happened if the road had not 

 been narrow.^® 



The decisions in Maine, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin were 

 approved of in a Colorado case.^® 



63. Exceptions to the Above Kule Where the Lack of Control 

 is but Momentary. — An exception to the rule above given has 

 been already suggested in the quotations from some of the 

 opinions, viz. : that when an animal merely shies and starts and 

 the lack of control is but momentary, it is not considered un- 

 controllable so as to relieve the municipality from liability if 

 it is immediately injured by a defect in the highway.^" This 

 is the well-established rule in Massachusetts.^^ So, in Maine, 

 where a well-broken horse shied at a bird in the bushes and 

 jumping from the road fell through a defective part in a 



" Rohrbough v. Barbour Co. Ct., 39 W. Va. 472. 



'* Smith V. Kanawha Co., 33 W. Va. 713. 



^° Farmers' High Line Canal & R. Co. v. Westlake, 23 Colo. 26. 



See, also, the Michigan cases cited in § 64, infra, some of which seem 

 to lean to the Massachusetts doctrine. 



°° See Houfe v. Fulton, Olson v. Chippewa Falls, Rohrbough v. Bar- 

 bour Co. Ct., cited supra. 



"Titus V. Northbridge, 97 Mass. 258; Horton v. Taunton, Ibid. 266 n.; 

 Britton v. Cummington, 107 id. 347; Wright v. Templeton, 132 id. 49; 

 Hinckley v. Somerset, 145 id. 326; Harris v. Great Barrington, 169 id. 271. 



