CHARACTER OP OBJECTS CAUSING FRIGHT. 239 



which bridge was in good condition, the bridge company was 

 held not liable in damages for the plaintiff's being thrown out, 

 as the liability of the master does not reach wrongs caused by 

 the carelessness of the servant in work not directed by the 

 former.^*" 



In an action to recover for injuries from a horse being 

 frightened at a sled and tubs left near the defendant's build- 

 ings in the highway, it was held that the defendant might 

 prove that the highway was Httle used at that season, but not 

 that his neighbors were accustomed to leave their sleds so 

 while loading them.^"" 



With regard to the color of a vehicle in the highway, it was 

 said in an English case: "If a person places his carriage, 

 painted green, brown or any ordinary color, on a highway, 

 and a certain horse has an aversion to the particular color 

 the carriage is painted and takes fright, no action would lie 

 against the owner of that carriage, because he has violated 

 no law and is lawfully using the highway in an ordinary man- 

 ner ; but, on the other hand, if he has his carriage constructed 

 and painted in such a manner as to be very conspicuous in- 

 deed, it might then become a nuisance." ^"^ The question 

 whether fright at a street railway car painted a bright color 

 rendered the company liable was raised, but not settled, in 

 a New Jersey case.^**^ 



Evidence that other animals have been frightened by the 

 object in question is admissible.^**' So witnesses may testify 



"" Wiltse V. State Road Bridge Co., 63 Mich. 639. 



™° Judd V. Fargo, 107 Mass. 264. 



"" Jeffery v. St. Pancras Vestry, 63 L. J. Q. B. 618. 



"" McCann v. Consold. Trac. Co., 59 N. J. L. 481. 



-"House V. Metcalf, 27 Conn. 631; Baker v. North East Borough, 151 

 Pa. St. 234; Potter v. Natural Gas Co., 183 id. 575; Smith v. Sherwood 

 Tp., 62 Mich. 159; Crocker v. McGregor, 76 Me. 282; DarUng v. West- 

 moreland, 52 N. H. 401; Valley v. Concord & M. R. Co. (N. H.), 38 Atl. 

 Rep. 383; Wilson V. Spafford, 32 N. Y. St. Repr. 532; Stewart v. Porter 

 Mfg. Co., 13 id. 220; ChampUn v. Penn Yan, 34 Hun (N. Y.) 33; Thomas 

 V. Springville City, 9 Utah 426; Brown v. Eastern & M. R. Co., 22 Q. B. 

 D. 391. 



In Bemis v. Temple, 162 Mass. 342, this kind of evidence is distin- 



