698 LIABILITY IRRESPECTIVE OF FENCING LAWS. 



applies where the fright is caused by an unnecessary obstruc- 

 tion or disfigurement of the highway by engines, cars, tim- 

 bers, etc.^i The test in this case is whether their appearance 

 is such as to frighten an ordinarily gentle horse.^*^ But it 

 has been said that if the cars project over the crossing itself, 

 the company is liable even if the horse is not gentle."* 

 Where a horse was frightened by a derrick projecting over 

 the highway so as naturally to frighten horses, the company 

 was held liable though the derrick was maintained for the 

 purpose of loading freight."* Some negligence must, how- 

 ever, be shown : the mere fact of fright is not sufficient to 

 charge the company."^ It has been held that the obstruc- 



7 Tnd. App. 222; Andrews v. Mason City & Fort D. R. Co., T} la. 669 

 Mo. Pac. R. Co. V. Gill, 49 Kan. 441; Culp v. Atchison & N. R. Co. 

 17 id. 475; Boothby v. Boston & M. R. Co., 90 Me. 313; Omaha & R, 

 V. R. Co. V. Clarke, 35 Neb. 867, 39 id. 65; Bittle v. Camden & A. R. Co., 

 55 N. J. L. 615; Presby v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 66 N. H. 615; Borst v. 

 Lake Shore & M. S. R. Co., 4 Hun (N. Y.) 346; Lott v. Frankford & 

 S. Pass. R. Co., 159 Pa. St. 471; Mo., K. & T. R. Co. v. Traub (Tex. Civ. 

 App.), 47 S. W. Rep. 282; Petersburg R. Co. v. Hite, 81 Va. 767; Kalbus 

 V. Abbot, ^^ Wis. 621; North. Pac. R. Co. v. Sullivan, 53 Fed. Rep. 219; 

 Manchester S. J. & A. R. Co. v. Fullarton, 14 C. B. N. S. 54. 



See, also, as to liability for injuries resulting from the fright of animals, 

 §§ 62-69, supra. 



"' Denver, T. & G. R. Co. v. Robbins, 2 Colo. App. 313; Great Western 

 R. Co. V. Decatur, 33 111. 381; Cleveland, C, C. & I. R. Co. v. Wynant, 

 114 Ind. 525; Grimes v. Louisville, N. A. & C. R. Co., 3 Ind. App. 573; 

 Peterson v. Chic. & W. M. R. Co., 64 Mich. 621; Tinker v. N. Y., O. & 

 W. R. Co., 157 N. Y. 312- Harrell v. Albermarle & R. R. Co., no N. C. 

 215; Mo., K. & T. R. Co. V. Jones, 13 Tex. Civ. App. 376: Desrousseau 

 V. Boston & M. R. Co., 34 Low. Can. Jur. 252. 



''''Kyne v. Wilmington & N. R. Co., 8 Houst. (Del.) 185; Tex. & Pac. 

 R. Co. V. McManus (Tex. Civ. App.), 38 S. W. Rep. 241, where it is held 

 also that the crossing need not be a public way. 



="" Mo. Pac. R. Co. V. Clark (Kan. App.), 49 Pac. Rep. 799. 



'"Jones V. Housatonic R. Co., 107 Mass. 261. 



'"" Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Loree, 4 Neb. 446; Moshier v. Utica & 

 S. R. Co., 8 Barb. (N. Y.) 427. 



The question of negligence is for the jury, where the evidence is con- 

 flicting: Green v. Eastern R. Co., 52 Minn. 79; Omaha & R. V. R. Co. 

 V. Clarke, 35 Neb. 867, 39 id. 65. 



