CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE. 249 



and taking the horse by the head.^** Where a horse is fright- 

 ened by a defect in the road and runs, the driver is bound to 

 use ordinary care after as well as before — such care as a per- 

 son of ordinary prudence would use, making due allowance 

 for the alarm of the horse.^^" 



Where one knowing the unsafe condition of a highway or 

 bridge sends his team over it, he cannot recover for an injury 

 to the team.^^^ Thus, where horses fell into an excavation in 

 the street, which was plainly dangerous to drive in, and the 

 driver could have reached his destination by other streets 

 without much loss of time, the owner of the horses cannot 

 recover.^^^ And where a horse loaned by the plaintiff to an- 

 other is killed by reason of the unsafe condition of the road, 

 evidence that the borrower knew of such condition and also of 

 a better road, should be received to show contributory neg- 

 ligence.^^^ But it has been held that the fact that the plain- 

 tiff could have avoided passing an obstruction by travelling 

 another road going a mile and a half out of his way, is not to 

 be considered on the question of contributory negligence.^^* 

 And where a cabman tried to lead his horse out of a stable 

 through a passage on which the commissioners of sewers had 

 heaped rubbish and the animal fell and was killed, it was held 



'" White V. Ballard, 19 Wash. 284. 



"" Brooks V. Petersham, 16 Gray (Mass.) 181. 



'"Hill V. Tionesta Tp., 146 Pa. St. 11; Hotchkin v. Philipsburg (Pa.), 

 6 Cent. Rep. 898; Riest v. Goshen, 42 Ind. 339; Morrison v. Shelby Co., 

 116 id. 431; Artman v. Kansas Cent. R. Co., 22 Kan. 296; Travis v. Car- 

 rollton, 7 N. Y. Suppt. 231; Shampay v. Chicago, 76 111. App. 429. 



See Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. v. Gasscamp, 69 Tex. 545; Rosedale v. Gold- 

 ing, SS Kan. 167. 



As to urging on horses in a highway through water which is getting 

 deeper, see Smith v. Walker Tp. (Mich), 75 N. W. Rep. 141. 



''' Cook V. Atlanta, 94 Ga. 613. 



That this may not amount to contributory negligence as matter of law, 

 see Carstesen v. Stratford, 67 Conn. 430. The place of excavation is the 

 "place of injury," though the loss and damage may have resulted from a 

 collision during the subsequent runaway: Ibid. 



'" Forks Tp. V. King, 84 Pa. St. 230. 



'" Cairncross v. Pewaukee, 86 Wis. 181. 



