224 INJURIES TO ANIMALS ON HIGHWAYS. 



ing sank into a mudhole, became frightened and ran away 

 and were injured in another place before they could be 

 stopped, it was held that the damages were not too remote 

 to be recovered from the city.^^^ 



In Mississippi, a municipal corporation was held not liable 

 for a horse's fright at articles deposited in a street outside 

 of the travelled way within two hours of the accident, as that 

 was not a sufficient time for notice of the defect.^^® 



In New Hampshire, an action may be brought for injuries 

 resulting from fright at objects in the road, such as stones, 

 where they are the direct and proximate cause of the acci- 

 dent ;^^^ and also where the objects are out of the travelled 

 portion of the highway, unless the person placing them there 

 was at the time using the highway in a manner necessary and 

 proper under all the circumstances.^*" Thus, a declaration 

 that the highway was obstructed by a pig-sty projecting into 

 it and occupied by five swine and that the plaintiff met with 

 an accident by her horses taking fright at their movement 

 and noises, was held good on demurrer, the court saying : "If 

 objects are suffered to remain (except for the merest tem- 

 porary purposes) resting upon one spot or confined within 

 any particular space within the highway, and are of such a 

 shape or character as to be manifestly likely to frighten horses 

 of ordinary gentleness, injuries caused by the fright thus oc- 

 casioned may properly be said to happen 'by reason of the 

 obstructions' or 'insufficiency' of the highway, unless the per- 

 son placing or continuing those objects upon the highway 

 was, in so doing, making such use of the highway as was, 

 under all the circumstances of the case, reasonable and 



"" Topeka v. Tuttle, 5 Kan. 311, 425. 



"' Butler V. Oxford, 69 Miss. 618. 



'"° Littleton v. Richardson, 32 N. H. 59. 



™ Winship v. Enfield, 42 N. H. 197; Chamberlain v. Enfield, 43 id. 356. 



Where an engine, owned by a private corporation, was placed near, but 

 outside of the limits of, the highway and concealed from view, this was 

 held not to be a defect rendering the town liable for the fright of horses: 

 Hebbard v. Berlin (N. H.), 32 Atl. Rep. 229. 



