226 INJURIES TO AXIMALS ON HIGHWAYS. 



hydrant across a highway by employees of the water commis- 

 sioners, frightening a horse and causing its death, it was held 

 that the water commissioners and their employees were 

 servants of the city and that the latter was Hable.^*'' Where 

 A. was injured by a horse driven by B. being frightened by 

 the overturn of a sleigh on snow and ice wrongfully left in 

 the highway by C, it was held that C.'s act was the proximate 

 ■cause of the injury.^^^ 



In South Carolina, the liability of municipalities is con- 

 fined to injuries resulting from an actual defect. Accord- 

 ingly where a mule was frightened by a placard placed on a 

 bridge without the knowledge of the county commissioners, 

 who removed it as soon as they had notice, it was held that 

 the county was not liable, and doubted whether it would be 

 even with notice, as the statute gave an action only for in- 

 juries "through a defect in the repair." ^'^ And where a 

 horse took fright at a piece of timber and backed the vehicle 

 off a bridge where there was no railing, it was held that the 

 absence of the railing was not a "defect in the repair" and was 

 not the proximate cause of the accident.^*" Nor is a city 

 liable for an injury caused by the fright of a horse at a booth 

 which it has permitted to be erected in the street on the 

 ground that it is a "defect" caused by neglect or mismanage- 

 ment, the intent of the act being to make municipal corpora- 

 tions liable only for something connected with the keeping of 

 the streets, etc., in proper and safe repair.^*^ 



In Texas, a city is negligent in allowing stones calculated 



"' Aldrich v. Tripp, ii R. I. 141. In Edgerly v. Concord, supra, it is 

 said: "With these authorities Aldrich v. Tripp, ... is not in conflict. 

 The decision in that case was put on the ground that the injury com- 

 plained of resulted from the careless management of a hydrant by the 

 water commissioners, and not by the fire department." 



"» Lee V. Union R. Co., 12 R. I. 383. 



™ Acker v. Anderson Co., 20 S. C. 495. 



"° Brown v. Laurens Co., 38 S. C. 282. This case was disapproved of in 

 Augusta V. Hudson, 94 Ga. 13s, cited in § 64, supra. 



"' Dunn V. Barnwell, 43 S. C. 398. 



