252 INJURIES TO ANIMALS ON HIGHWAYS. 



pipes.""" But where one who knew of a hole made by the city 

 in an unopened street, turned his horse loose in the neigh- 

 borhood which, running at large contrary to law, fell in and 

 was injured, it was held that the plaintiff could not recover 

 though the defendant also was negligent.^"^ 



Where an expressman left his horse untied in a street near 

 a curbstone while he was delivering a parcel and the wagon 

 was struck by a car and the horse injured, it was held that, in 

 the absence of proof of restiveness or vicious propensity, it 

 was not negUgence per se to leave the horse under the circum- 

 stances, nor was the defendant's liability affected by the fact 

 that the animal's movements increased the damage.^** And 

 where the plaintiff's horses standing without a driver on the 

 tow-path of a canal were injured by the defendant's negli- 

 gence, it was held that if they were in a proper place at the 

 time, the fact that a driver might have moved them and so 

 avoided the accident, did not as a matter of law render the 

 plaintiff guilty of contributory negHgence in leaving them 

 unattended.^"^ So, where a plaintiff left his horse unhitched 

 in the street while he went into a shop a few feet away, but, 

 when the animal became frightened, caught hold of him and 

 was dragged thirty feet, this was held not to be negligence, 

 though an ordinance prohibited leaving a horse unhitched, 

 as such ordinance "was evidently not intended to apply to 

 a horse when in the presence and under the control of the 

 owner or driver." ^^^ 



'"° Noblesville Gas & Imp. Co. v. Teter, i Ind. App. 322. 



^^ Gribble v. Sioux City, 38 la. 390 — though this decision was overruled 

 in part in Kuhn v. Chic, R. I. & P. R. Co., 42 id. 420, in so far as it held 

 that the statutes made it unlawful to permit the animal to be at large. 



See Bennett v. Hazen, 66 Mich. 637. 



'"Albert v. Bleecker St., etc., R. Co., 2 Daly (N. Y.) 389. And see 

 Greenwood v. Callahan, III Mass. 298. 



See also § 85, infra. 



"°' Schoonmaker v. McNally, 6 Thomp. & C. (N. Y.) 47. 



See Salvas v. New City Gas Co., 2 Leg. News (Can.) 97. 



'" Louisville, N. A. & C. R. Co. v. Davis, 7 Ind. App. 222. 



And see Kearns v. Sowden, 104 Mass. 63; Klipper v. Coflfey, 44 Md. 117. 



