324 IMPOUNDING ; INJUKIKS ON HIGHWAYS, ETC. 



been left untied, though the driver is careful and the horse 

 an ordinarily gentle one, the court said: "We do not hold 

 that the leaving of a team of horses in a street without being 

 tied or held by the reins is, under all circumstances, as a mat- 

 ter of law, negligence per se. . . . The driver, however, in 

 such cases ought to be near his horse and in a condition to 

 control him by his voice and to reach him, if necessary, with 

 his hand in an emergency." ''^ 



So it was held not to be negligence per se for the driver of 

 a quiet horse standing in the street to let go the reins while 

 he alighted to fasten the head-weight, there being at the time 

 little traffic and no noise in the street, the horse becoming 

 frightened by a sudden noise just after the driver had 

 alighted.®^ And a porter was held not to be obliged, under 

 the circumstances, to put a person at his horse's head while 

 he reinoved the goods from his cart.®* 



It was held in Kentucky that where a runaway was caused 

 by a driver's leaving his team standing in the street, evidence 

 could not be given of an ordinance making this unlawful. 

 "It is the legal duty of every person having charge of a horse 

 in city or country to apportion the care with which he han- 

 dles him to the danger to be apprehended from a failure to 

 keep him constantly under control. ... It may be danger- 

 ous for a driver to leave his team upon the street and the city 

 council no doubt had authority to prohibit such an act ; but 

 the simple fact that they did prohibit it does not prove nor 



■" Moulton V. Aldrich, 28 Kan. 300. 



That negligence is presumed in such a case in the absence of explana- 

 tion, see Davis v. Kallfelz, 22 Misc. (N. Y.) 602. 



That the fact that horses got loose after being hitched would be some 

 evidence of negligence, see Strup v. Edens, 22 Wis. 432. 



'" Sullivan v. McWilliam, 20 Ont. App. 627. Otherwise, where there is 

 reason to anticipate fright: Benner Livery & U. Co. v. Busson, 58 111. 

 App. 17. And see Milne v. Nimmo, 25 Rettie (Sc. Ct. Sess.) 1150. 



" Hayman v. Hewitt, Peake's Add. Cas. 170. And see Smith v. Wal- 

 lace, 25 Rettie (Sc. Ct. Sess.) 761; Wright v. Dawson, 5 Sc. L. T. 

 Rep. 196. 



