208 INJURIES TO ANIMALS ON HIGHWAYS. 



ing the rule in the above cases, that where the driver exercises 

 due care he may recover for an injury received by his fright- 

 ened horse through a defect in the highway. The rule in 

 Massachusetts and Maine was said to "rest upon peculiar stat- 

 utory provisions," which proposition, however, it would be 

 difficult to support. 



So, one injured by her horse being frightened by a hog 

 under a bridge and backing off where there was no railing 

 is not deprived of her right to recover by the fact that she had 

 opportunity for knowing what the condition of the bridge 

 was and might have avoided it by going out of her way. "As 

 neither party was to blame for the fright of the horse, and as 

 the appellant was alone to blame for the defect in the bridge, 

 it is quite evident that the appellant cannot escape responsi- 

 bility." ^^ And in a similar case it was said: "It is not un- 

 usual nor unnatural for horses upon bridges to shy or start. 

 ... It cannot be overlooked in considering whether in a 

 given case the bridge should be supplied with a railing." ^^ 

 Where the plaintiff had safely crossed a bridge and the horse, 

 becoming frightened, backed the buggy on it again and over 

 the side where there was no railing, the county was held lia- 

 able.^* The general rule as to the liability of municipalities 

 for injuries resulting from fright and a defect in the road was 

 re-asserted in the late case of Fowler v. Linquist.^® 



In Illinois, where the injury was caused by the horses run- 

 ning away and the wheel of the wagon going into a hole, the 

 city was held liable, and it was also said that if a sidewalk is 

 used both by vehicles and foot-passengers, the municipality 

 must keep it safe for both classes of travellers."" But a vil- 

 lage is not liable where a runaway team strikes a stone placed 



"" Boone Co. Commrs. v. Mutchler, 137 Ind. 140. 



" Sullivan Co. v. Sisson, 2 Ind. App. 311. 



■'' Parke Co. Commrs. v. Sappenfield, 6 Ind. App. 577. And see Eads 

 V. Marshall (Tex. Civ. App.), 29 S. W. Rep. 170, cited infra. 



''" 138 Ind. 566. And see Mount Vernon v. Hoehn (Ind. App.), 53 N. E. 

 Rep. 654. 



'"' Lacon v. Page, 48 111. 499. 



