WHERE FRIGHT IS CAUSED BY THE DEFECT. 227 



to frighten horses of ordinary gentleness to remain by the 

 road for an unreasonable time>*^ 



In Vermont, a town is responsible for leaving frightful ob- 

 jects on the margin of a highway, so that teams are terrified, 

 and the responsibility is greater with reference to the removal 

 of obstructions made by the unlawful deposit of private prop- 

 erty on the road than of those which exist naturally in the 

 soil or are cast on the margin while the road is being made 

 or repaired. The court dissent from the Massachusetts cases 

 and say : "It is beyond doubt that the placing of an obstruc- 

 tion upon a public way which, by its frightful appearance or 

 otherwise, would 'hinder or impede passing,' might subject 

 the party who made the obstruction to fine and damages, and, 

 if continued, might subject the town to indictment or to dam- 

 ages if the cause of an accident by collision. It is not easy 

 to see the ground upon which the town should be entirely 

 exempted from liability for the other and natural consquence 

 of the obstruction — an accident by fright." ^*^ 



But where trustees having charge of streets purchased a 

 stone-crusher, which frightened a horse, they were held not 

 responsible for the resulting accident on the ground that a 

 municipal ofificer is not liable to a private individual for the 

 consequences of an act strictly within the ofificial powers and 

 duties."* 



In Wisconsin, Morse v. Richmond, supra, was followed and 

 it was held that an object naturally calculated to frighten 

 horses of ordinary gentleness, though it may be so far re- 

 moved from the travelled path as to avoid all danger of col- 

 lision, is a defect for which the town is liable."® And it is 

 the duty of the overseer to remove it at once, the intervention 



"' Patterson v. Austin (Tex. Civ. App.), 39 S. W. Rep. 976, approving 

 of the decisions in Connecticut, Indiana and Vermont. 



"' Morse v. Richmond, 41 Vt. 435. And see the note to this case in 

 8 Am. L. Reg. N. S. 81. 



'" Bates V. Horner, 65 Vt. 471. 



"' Foshay v. Glen Haven, 25 Wis. 288. 



