KULE THAT MUNICIPALITY IS LIABLE. 213 



said to be a relative term, and it was held that the road need 

 not be kept so as to guard against injuries by runaway horses : 

 it was sufficient if it were kept in a reasonable state of repair 

 for ordinary travel. The court intimated that if it had not 

 been for the case of Sherwood v. Hamilton, cited supra, it 

 would have held the running away to have been the proximate 

 cause of the injury, even if the road had not been in a reason- 

 able state of repair.^^ The Court of Appeal, however, re- 

 versed this decision and held that a highway in which such 

 a stump stood was out of repair and that, where horses were 

 running away with no fault of the driver, he was entitled to 

 recover damages under such circumstances, nor would the 

 contributory negligence of the driver be an answer in an 

 action brought for injuries to the occupant of a carriage who 

 had in good faith entrusted himself to the driver's care.®^ A 

 telephone pole in the highway has also been held to be an 

 obstruction and, where runaway horses came into contact 

 with it, the city was held liable.** 



In a Federal case, also, it was held that where a municipality 

 permits the erection of a telephone pole which is a dangerous 

 obstruction in the highway, it, as well as the telephone com- 

 pany, is liable for an injury to one driving a gentle horse 

 which had become unmanageable from fright, but that the 

 company was not liable if a third person unhitched the horse, 

 which ran away and struck the pole.*^ And a street railway 

 company leaving snow in the street in masses, is responsible 

 for resulting injuries to a traveller whose horse became fright- 

 ened owing to some other cause.** 



And see Price v. Cataraqui Bridge Co., 35 id. 314, where a bridge com- 

 pany was held not liable as the action should have been brought against 

 lessees covenanting to work the drawbridge. 



'" Foley V. East Flamborough Tp., 29 Ont. 139. 



" Same v. Same, 35 Can. L. Jour. 167. 



"Atkinson v. Chatham, 29 Ont. 518. 



" Wolfe V. Erie Teleg. & Teleph. Co., 33 Fed. Rep. 320. And see 

 Lundeen v. Livingston Elec. Light Co., 17 Mont. 32. 



'" McDonald v. Toledo Consol. St. R. Co., 74 Fed. Rep. 104. 



