232 INJURIES TO ANIMALS ON HIGHWAYS. 



wiLh reference to the use of steam engines and implements is 

 sustained by other decisions.!^" On the other hand it has 

 been held that the owner of a traction engine which frightens 

 ordinary horses is liable, though all statutory requirements 

 have been complied with.^^" And in an action against a city 

 for personal injuries caused by the fright of horses at a steam 

 motor used on a street railway by the permission of the city 

 council, it was held that, in the absence of express statutory 

 authority, the city had no power to permit such use and that 

 the grant constituted negligence.^ ^® But the owner of a trac- 

 tion engine in the hands of a bailee is not responsible for an 

 injury resulting from a horse being frightened by the en- 

 gine.''^® 



Where a horse was frightened at a steam roller the city was 

 held liable, the court saying : "The roller was taken through 

 the street at a time when it was being used by the pubhc and 

 when its passage was necessarily attended with danger. The 

 circumstances required the exercise of a high degree of care 

 and the use of every possible precaution to avoid accident." ^®" 

 And such a roller left in the street during the suspension of 

 the work of macadamizing was held an object calculated to 

 frighten horses and a recovery was allowed against the city 

 on the ground of negligence.^ *^ But in another case it was 

 held that a steam roller properly used in repairing a street 

 was not such an obstruction or defect as would render the city 

 liable for frightening horses.^ ^^ 



"° See Turner v. Buchanan, 82 Ind. 147; Sparr v. St. Louis, 4 Mo. App. 

 572; Ouverson v. Grafton, S N. D. 281. 



"' Bantwick v. Rogers. 7 Times L. Rep. 542, where it is said: "The true 

 test of liability is whether the engine is calculated to frighten horses using 

 the road legitimately." And see Galer v. Rawson, 6 id. 17; Watkins v. 

 Reddin, 2 F. & F. 629. 



"' Stanley v. Davenport, 54 la. 463. 



See State v. Kowolski, 96 id. 346, with regard to statutory regulations. 



""Smith V. Bailey, [1891] 2 Q. B. 403. 



'"" Denver v. Peterson, s Colo. App. 41. And see Jefifery v. St. Pancras 

 Vestry, 63 L. J. Q. B. 618; Mullen v. Glens Falls, 11 N. Y. App. Div. 275. 



"' Young V. New Haven, 39 Conn. 435. "'" Lane v. Lewiston, 91 Me. 292. 



