214 INJURIES TO ANIMALS ON HIGHWAYS. 



The rule considered in the present section would, therefore, 

 appear to have the weight of authority on its side. As a mat- 

 ter of public policy, moreover, it is to the advantage of the 

 community that municipalities should be compelled to pro- 

 vide good and safe roads and bridges rather than escape from 

 such liability for a reason connected with the well-known 

 habits of animals that ought to be taken into account in con- 

 structing and repairing highways over which they are to 

 travel. As a question of the law of Negligence, too, it seems 

 reasonable, as was said in Boone Co. Commrs. v. Mutchler,®'' 

 that as in these cases neither party is to blame for the animal's 

 fright and the municipality is alone to blame for the defect, 

 the latter should not escape responsibility for the resulting 

 injury. 



65. Where Fright is Caused by the Defect Whatever doubt 



there may be as to municipal liability in cases where the fright 

 is purely accidental, there would naturally seem to be none 

 where the fright itself is produced by the defect in the high- 

 way. Nevertheless, even here, there is not entire unanimity 

 of opinion. 



In Massachusetts, for example, the rule appears to be that 

 the town is no case liable for the consequences of the fright of 

 animals caused by a defect in the highway unless the animal 

 comes into actual contact with the defect, and then only for 

 an injury immediately resulting, without any escape from the 

 driver's control.** 



In Marble v. Worcester,*^ by reason of a defect in the high- 

 way, a sleigh was turned over, the driver thrown out, the 

 horse became frightened, broke away from the driver's con- 

 trol, ran through an adjacent street for a distance of fifty rods 

 and there struck and injured a person travelling on the high- 

 way and using all due care. It was held that the city was 



" 137 Ind. 140, cited supra. " See 15 L. R. A. 368 n. 

 °°4 Gray (Mass.) 305. 



