CHARACTER OP OBJECTS CAUSING FRIGHT. 231 



by no known rules. In many instances a spirited road horse 

 will pass in safety an obstruction that a quiet farm horse will 

 scare at. A leaf, a piece of paper, a lady's shawl fluttering^ 

 in the wind, a stone or a stump by the wayside will sometimes 

 alarm even a quiet horse. I may mention by way of illustra- 

 tion that the severest fright I ever knew a horse to feel was 

 caused by the sunlight shining in through the window of a 

 bridge upon the floor." ^^* 



So in a Connecticut case the court said : "There is a large 

 class of nuisances which may cause injury to persons in the 

 use of a highway for which towns are not liable ; and we agree 

 that there are very many objects which may frighten horses 

 upon the highway, in relation to which no duty devolves upon 

 the town and therefore, in case of injury, no liability at- 

 taches. But the fact that a horse may be frightened at a piece 

 of paper or the rustling of leaves is no reason why the town 

 should not remove a dead horse or a frightful looking tent. 

 The character of the object, however, should be such as to 

 make the danger obvious and the duty of the town clear. In 

 respect to this no rule can be laid down which will indicate 

 clearly and definitely the line between immunity and liability. 

 It is and must be from the nature of the case, in the main, a 

 question of fact for the jury. We only determine that such 

 nuisances may be defects ; whether they are so or not, the jury, 

 upon a consideration of the character of the object, its situa- 

 tion, the amount of travel, and all the circumstances, must 

 determine." ^^^ 



It was accordingly held in Macomber v. Nichols, supra, 

 that where a horse was frightened by an engine on the street, 

 propelled by steam, it was error to permit the recovery to turn 

 on the fact whether it was calculated to frighten horses of 

 ordinary gentleness, the question, as has been said, being one 

 of negligence under all the circumstances. And this view 



"" Paxson, J., ill Pittsb. South. R. Co. v. Taylor, 104 Pa. St. 306, 316. 

 "° Ayer v. Norwich, 39 Conn. 376. And see Laird v. Otsego, 90 Wis. 

 25; Smith V. Sherwood Tp., 62 Mich. 159. 



