212 INJURIES TO ANIMALS ON HIGHWAYS. 



even though it had crossed in safety before becoming fright- 

 ened.''' 



In Washington, where a horse was frightened at bicycles 

 and backed off of a planking in a street where there was no 

 guard-rail, the city was held liable on the ground that "streets 

 must be so constructed that the ordinary horse with the or- 

 dinary disposition, allowing for the ordinary incidents of 

 caprice or fright, can be driven with reasonable safety on 

 them." ''* But where a bridge was in a reasonably safe con- 

 dition, the fact that a runaway team of horses dashed over the 

 side at a point where there was no guard rail was held not to 

 render the city liable.''* 



In Upper Canada, where a horse shied at new planks in a 

 bridge and backed to the end of it and the hind wheels of the 

 buggy went over an unfenced bank, resulting in injury to the 

 plaintifif's wife, it was held that the want of a fence was the 

 proximate cause of the injury and that the township was lia- 

 ble.^" And where the plaintifif with a wagon and a load of 

 bricks was coming down hill and his horses ran away and 

 went down a precipice through an opening in a fence, it was 

 held that the mere fact of their running away and becoming 

 unmanageable would not prevent the plaintifif's recovering if 

 he had not been guilty of a want of reasonable care or skill. 

 The rule in New Hampshire was adopted as against that es- 

 tablished in Maine and Massachusetts.^^ In a later case it 

 was held that, where runaway horses caused an injury by run- 

 ning into a large stump in the highway, the municipality was 

 not liable, as the road, notwithstanding the stump, was in a 

 reasonable state of repair. "Repair," in the statute, was 



" Eads V. Marshall (Tex. Civ. App.), 29 S. W. Rep. 170. And see 

 Parke Co. Commrs. v. Sappenfield, 6 Ind. App. 577, cited supra. 



" White V. Ballard, 19 Wash. 284. 



™ Teater v. Seattle, 10 Wash. 327. The court said : "The city is not an 

 insurer of the safety of its streets, but is only required to keep them in a 

 safe condition for ordinary travel." 



'° Toms V. Whitby, 35 U. C. Q. B. 195; 37 id. 100. 



*' Sherv^ood v. Hamilton, 37 U. C. Q. B. 410. 



