HORSES RUNNING AWAY. 333 



A street car company is responsible for injury to a passen- 

 ger from the horses being frightened by a train and running 

 away, where the horses are unsuitable for the course.^-" 



Negligence in not checking and getting under control a 

 team driven at reckless speed through the street and colliding 

 with a foot passenger, was held as a matter of law not to be 

 rendered a remote cause by the fact that the person was struck 

 by the horse shying at an elevated railroad train. "The acci- 

 dent is attributable to both or either and it is for the jury to 

 determine which of them is the proximate cause." ^^'^ 



Where the defendant's horse ran away through his negli- 

 gence, the fact that the crowd hallooed and tried to stop it, 

 thus making it swerve and do damage, will not relieve the de- 

 fendant. "The rule of law is well settled that where the plain- 

 tifif has been injured in his person or property by the wrong- 

 ful act or omission of the defendant, or through his culpable 

 negligence the fact that a third party, by his wrong or negli- 

 gence, contributed to the injury, does not relieve the defend- 

 ant from liability." '^^ 



A street car company must use reasonable care in selecting 

 its horses and ascertaining whether they are safe for such use, 

 and the fact that a passenger is riding on the front platform 

 is not the proximate cause of an injury received as he is try- 

 ing to alight by being kicked by the horses through whose 

 fright the car had been thrown off the track. ^*^ 



But where a street car horse ran away and struck a post, 



""Rainnie v. St. John City R. Co., 31 N. B. 582, where it is said: "It 

 is not essential (as in insurance cases) that the proximate cause shall alone 

 be regarded. It is sufficient if an efficient cause of the thing complained 

 of is found in some tortious acts of the defendant. Here the accident is 

 found to have been caused by a negligent act of defendants, namely, the 

 employment of horses unsuitable for the route they were placed on." 



'" Van Houten v. Fleischman, 20 N. Y. Suppt. 643. 



'" Griggs V. Fleckenstein, 14 Minn. 81. 



"'Noble V. St. Joseph & B. H. St. R. Co., 98 Mich. 249. And see 

 Rainnie v. St. John City R. Co., supra. 



