256 INJURIES TO ANIMALS ON HIGHWAYS. 



the question of damages.^*^ But there is no rule that one 

 injured by being thrown from a wagon as a result of defects 

 in a highway when his horses were running away, cannot re- 

 cover if it be shown that the horses had run away before : the 

 question of reasonable care is for the jury.^®* And it has 

 even been held that where a defect in the highway caused A.'s 

 team to run away and collide with B., who sued the town — 

 evidence that A.'s team was in the habit of running away was 

 inadmissible.^** 



It has been held that evidence that the plaintiff is habitu- 

 ally a reckless driver, is inadmissible.^®" And, on the other 

 hand, evidence that the plaintiff was commonly careful and 

 skilful in driving, is not admissible to show that at the time 

 of the accident he was exercising due care.^*^ It has already 

 been stated that evidence of similar cases of fright at the same 

 object may be given.^®^ 



The subject of damages for the injury to or death of an ani- 

 mal has been already treated of,^®* but some additional cases 

 may properly be considered here. Damages against a town 

 for injuries to a horse from a defective highway may be pro- 

 portioned to the length of time of the disability.^®* Evidence 

 of the animal's value before and after the accident is admis- 

 sible.^®^ Where the animal dies, compensation cannot be 

 recovered for the loss of the use of its services in addition to 



-" Bait. & Y. Tui-np. R. v. Crowther, 63 Md. 558. 



So, where a horse acquires a habit of kicking, as the result of the ac- 

 cident: English V. Mo. Pac. R. Co., 73 Mo. App. 232. 



^^ Centralia v. Scott, 59 111. 129. ^™ Cheney v. Ryegate, 55 Vt. 499. 



'°° Brennan v. Friendship, 67 Wis. 223. 



'" McDonald v. Savoy, no Mass. 49. '" See § 66, supra. 



'■"" See §§ 50, 61, supra. 



In an action for damages for an injury to a horse caused by an obstruc- 

 tion in a street, it was held error to charge that the jury might allow 

 such sum as they believed the horse to be damaged, as no rule was fur- 

 nished by which damages could be ascertained: Badgley v. St Louis 

 (Mo.), 50 S. W. Rep. 817. 



^"Johnson v. Holyoke, 105 Mass. 80. 



"™ Whiteley v. China, 61 Me. 199. 



