WHERE FRIGHT IS CAUSED BY THE DEFECT. 225 



proper. . . . Objects calculated to frighten horses would 

 often be far more dangerous and much less easily guarded 

 against by the traveller than many obstructions with which 

 he comes in actual contact or collision; and when they have 

 been suffered to remain in the highway so long that the town 

 may fairly be said to have had notice of their existence there 

 and a reasonable opportunity to remove them, . . . there can 

 be no hardship to the town in holding it liable for damages 

 caused by horses taking fright at them." ^^^ The court ex- 

 pressly disapproved of the Massachusetts cases of Kingsbury 

 V. Dedham and Cook v. Charlestown.^^^ 



Where horses, frightened by the overturning of their load 

 caused by a defect in the highway, ran and collided with a 

 traveller, the town was, accordingly, held liable.^^^ But 

 where horses took fright at the large number of sleds used by 

 boys in sliding for sport, it was held that a nuisance might be 

 committed which did not amount to an "obstruction," that 

 this was not such an "obstruction" and, consequently, the city 

 was not liable.*^* And where the horse's fright was caused 

 by the act of a fireman in throwing a stream from a hose into 

 the street, in order to test the force and capacity of a hydrant, 

 the city was held not Hable on the ground that this was not 

 a "defect in the street" and also because "a town is not liable 

 for damage done by the fire department." ^^' 



In Rhode Island, a town is liable where a horse is fright- 

 ened by an object allowed to remain in the highway, and it 

 is held that the town and the person leaving the object in 

 the road are not joint tort-feasors, the former being liable by 

 statute, the latter at common law.^^^ And where the dam- 

 age was caused by a stream of water, thrown from a city 



"' Bartlett v. Hooksett, 48 N. H. 18. "' Cited supra. 

 " Merrill v. Claremont, 58 N. H. 468. 

 "* Ray V. Manchester, 46 N. H. S9- 



"° Edgerly v. Concord, 59 N. H. 78, distinguishing Aldrich v. Tripp, 

 infra. 

 ''" Bennett v. Fifield, 13 R. I. I39- 

 15 



