DAMAGE IN HIGHWAYS BY PASSING ANIMALS. 339 



not 1-esponsible for the resulting damage if he used the pre- 

 cautions which are usual and reasonably safe under the cir- 

 cumstances, even though there are other methods of remov- 

 ing bulls which are more secure and well known.^^" Where 

 a cow, led by one man, was startled and became unmanage- 

 able in consequence of smelling the blood in a slaughter-house 

 from which she was being taken, the owner was held liable 

 for the damage done.^®^ 



It was held not negligence per se to permit a boy fifteen 

 years old to drive a cow in the highway, whereby a collision 

 was caused and the plaintiff injured.^^^ 



Where an animal is running at large in the highway con- 

 trary to an ordinance, the city is not responsible for any dam- 

 age done;*^° unless it could have prevented the same by or- 

 dinary care and diligence or the owner has been in fault. ^^* 

 One racing horses on the street is liable for injury to others, 

 whether or not racing often takes place with the consent of 

 the city officials. ^'^ 



Where a horse going at large on a sidewalk kicks a person, 

 it is immaterial whether its act was vicious or merely playful : 

 the owner is liable in either case.-'^® 



It is sufficient in such cases to show that the road is used 

 by the public as a highway : it is not necessary to show that 

 it was legally estabHshed.^"^ A turnpike road is a highway 

 within the statutory sense.^^* 



''° Harpers v. Great North of Scotland R. Co., 13 Rettie (Sc. Ct. Sess.) 

 II39- 



"' Phillips V. Nicoll, II Rettie (Sc. Ct. Sess.) 592. 



"^ Smith V. Matteson, 41 Hun (N. Y.) 216. 



'" Levy V. N. Y. City, i Sandf. (N. Y.) 465- 



'" Cochrane v. Frostburg, 81 Md. 54. 



''= Hanrahan z: Cochran, 12 N. Y. App. Div. 91. And see Osborn v. 

 Jenkinson, 100 la. 432. 



"° Dickson v. McCoy, 39 N. Y. 400. 



'" Meier v. Shrunk, 79 la. 17. 



"'Pickard v. Howe, 12 Mete. (Mass.) 198; Gilmore v. Holt, 4 Pick. 

 <Mass.) 258. 



