204 INJUEIES TO ANIMALS ON HIGHWAYS. 



an accident as could not have been prevented by ordinary 

 care and prudence, the tow^n is liable.^'' If the vices of the 

 horse or a defect in the harness contributed, the plaintiff must 

 show both that he did not know of them and also that he 

 was in no fault in not so knowing.*® He must also have been 

 in the exercise of ordinary care in managing the team, which 

 is such care as mankind in general, not such as persons of the 

 same class as himself, are accustomed to exercise.*^ If, not- 

 withstanding the horse's fright, the accident would not have 

 happened but for the defect in the highway, the plaintifif may 

 recover, if exercising due care : all these questions are for the 

 jury.*® 



The same rule was laid down in an early Vermont case, 

 where it was held that, notwithstanding the primary cause of 

 the injury was the failure of a nut or bolt which was insuffi- 

 ciently or improperly fastened, the plaintifif might recover for 

 the consequences of the defect in the road where he is himself 

 guilty of no negligence. The court said : "In every case of 

 damage occurring on the highway, we could suppose a state 

 of circumstances in which the injury would not have occurred. 

 If the team had not been too young or restive or too old or 

 too headstrong, or the harness had not been defective or the 

 carriage insufficient, no loss would have intervened. It is to 

 guard against these constantly occurring accidents that towns 

 are required to guard, in building highways. The traveller is 

 not bound to see to it that his carriage and harness is always 

 perfect, and his team of the most manageable character, and 

 in the most perfect training, before he ventures upon the high- 

 way. If he could be always sure of all this, he would not re- 

 quire any further guaranty of his safety, unless the roads were 

 absolutely impassable. If the plaintifif is in the exercise of 

 ordinary care and prudence, and the injury is attributable to 



"'Norris v. Litchfield, 35 N. H. 271; Clark v. Barrington, 41 id. 44. 

 '° Winship V. Enfield, 42 N. H. 197. 

 " Tucker v. Henniker, 41 N. H. 317. 

 ^ Stark V. Lancaster, 57 N. H. 88. 



