336 impounding; injuries on highways, etc. 



held not guilty of negligence in starting to pass from the boat 

 by the way used by vehicles which had been opened to pas- 

 sengers by those in charge, so as to prevent his recovery for 

 an injury received from a runaway horse which had bolted 

 into the ferry-house and on to the driveway.^*' Where the 

 plaintiff's horse became frightened by a collision with .the de- 

 fendant's team, and the plaintifif seized the bridle rein of the 

 horse to keep him from running away, and in so doing was 

 injured by the horse, he was held not to be negligent, as a 

 matter of law, nor could the proximate cause be said to be 

 some act intervening between the colHsion and the injury.^^- 



In an action for an injury to goods on a sidewalk by a run- 

 away horse, it was held no defence to show an ordinance pro- 

 hibiting the placing of wares on the pavement.^*^ 



The subject of the present section has been thus admirably 

 summed up in an article in the Solicitors' Journal : "Of course 

 there are cases where the question of negligence may arise, 

 though the damage is the result of the volition of animals. If 

 the known character of the animal is such that mischief that 

 arises may be expected and foreseen, of course the duty of 

 using a greater amount of precaution to prevent it may arise. 

 A man driving a vicious bull along a street or letting a dog 

 of known bad character be at large cannot rely on the fact 

 that the damage was done by the animal sua spontc. So in 

 the old case of Mitchil v. Alestree (i Vent. 295) where the 

 defendant took an unbroken horse into Lincoln's Inn Fields 

 for the purpose of breaking the horse, and the horse was so 

 unruly that he broke from the defendant and ran over the 

 plaintiff, the defendant was held liable. The question will 

 always arise in cases with regard to animals, whether there 

 is any negligence in the use of the animal for the purposes 

 for — and under the circumstances in — which it was used, 

 having regard to the character of the animal. This must be 



"' Watson V. Camden & A. R. Co., 55 N. J. L. 125. 



"'Willis V. Providence Telegram Pub. Co. (R. I.), 38 Atl. Rep. 947. 



"" Gannon v. Wilson (Pa.), 2 Cent. Rep. 305. 



