INJURY FROM OTHER CAUSES. 245 



avoided the consequences of the defendant's negHgence, he 

 is entitled to recover." ^^° But where the plaintiff's horse 

 was killed by the shaft of the defendant's carriage running 

 into him in the open day on the highway where there was 

 room to pass, it was held that an instruction that the plaintiff 

 was not held to the rule that he must establish a prima facie 

 cause of action by showing that the injury came from the de- 

 fendant's negligence and that the defendant must disprove 

 care and establish negligence on the plaintiff's part — was er- 

 roneous.^^i And where the plaintiff's colt while straying on 

 the road was cut by the defendant's reaping machine, the lat- 

 ter trying to keep it off, it was held that the plaintiff could not 

 recover. ^^^ 



The owner of a private road is not responsible for a horse 

 falling in an excavation, there being no duty cast upon him 

 to protect one using the road without a license. ^^^ And 

 where the plaintiff's horse was injured by striking a project- 

 ing bolt while passing through an opening under the defend- 

 ant's bridge which the former had used for some years, with- 

 out the defendant's objection, for passing his stock through, 

 it was held that such a use was a mere license, and would not 

 entitle the plaintiff to recover for the injury.^^* Where the 

 owners of land dedicated a foot-way which was dangerous to 

 horses and carriages, the city was held not liable for an injury 

 to horses and carriages driven thereon with ordinary care.^^* 

 A municipal corporation which has never, expressly or by im- 



™ Davies v. Mann, lo M. & W. 546. And see Gulliver v. Blauvelt, 14 

 N. Y. App. Div. 523. 



^' Waters v. Wing, 59 Pa. St. 211. 



""' Carr v. Black, Mont. L. Rep., 3 S. C. 3S0. 



'^^ Murley v. Grove, 46 J. P. 360. 



'" Truax v. Chic, St. P., M. & O. R. Co., 83 Wis. 547- 



"'" Hemphill v. Boston, 8 Cush. (Mass.) 195. 



See Owen v. De Winton, 58 J. P. 833, where it was held that one who 

 widened a dangerous road alongside of a brook was not under the circum- 

 stances liable to one who fell ofif it with his team, the court saying: "If 

 they dedicated the road which was a dangerous road . . . the public must 

 leave it alone, not take to it, or, if they take to it, must take to it as it is." 



