LIABILITY FOR FRIGHTKXING ANIMALS. 603 



the employees after discovering its fright.^*^^ In a Pennsyl- 

 vania case it was held that as it is the duty of the gripman 

 of a traction car to ring his bell at all street crossings, if the 

 plaintiff's horses, standing near a crossing, were frightened 

 by the ringing and ran away, the gripman was not chargeable 

 with negligence which would render the company liable.^^* 

 But in a Federal case this general statement was disapproved 

 of, and it was held that it might be negligence to ring the 

 gong too violently near a frightened horse, and that this was 

 a question for the jury.^"" And in a Texas case it was held to 

 be negligence for one operating a street car to continue sound- 

 ing the bell after he saw, or by the exercise of ordinary care 

 might have seen, that horses attached to a wagon in front 

 were being frightened and rendered unmanageable : it was 

 his duty either to stop the car or cease ringing the bell.^*'^ 



Electric cars have a right of way in a qualified manner 

 and others should carefully observe their movements, but a 

 person owning an unbroken horse is not debarred from 

 reasonable opportunities of exercising it near the cars in 



"'See Doster v. CharloUe St. R. Co., 117 N. C. 651; Galesburg Elec. 

 Motor & Powei- Co. v. Manville, supra; North Side St. R. Co. v. Tippens, 



4 Tex. App. (Civ. Cas.) 226; Ward v. Lakeside R. Co., 20 Pa. Co. Ct. -104- 

 The question whether an unusual noise is unnecessary is ordinarily 



for the jury: Hill v. Rome St. R. Co., lOi Ga. 66. 



™ Steiner v. Phila. Trac. Co., 134 Pa. St. ipg, citing Phila. Trac. Co. v. 

 Bernheimer, 125 id. 615. The court said: "Nor does such ringing neces- 

 sarily tend to frighten horses. If it did, there would be accidents daily." 



'" Lightcap V. Phila. Trac. Co., 60 Fed. Rep. 213, affirmed in Phila. 

 Trac. Co. v. Lightcap, 17 U. S. App. 605. And see Wachtel v. East St. 

 Louis & St. L. Elec. R. Co.. 77 111. App. 465; Henderson v. Greenfield 

 & T. F. St. R. Co. (Mass.), 52 N. E. Rep. 1080. 



■" Citizens' R. Co. v. Hair (Tex. Civ. App.), 32 S. W. Rep. 1050. 



And see Benjamin v. Holyoke St. R. Co., 160 Mass. 3; Ellis v. Lynn 

 & Boston R. Co., Ibid. 341; Citizens' St. R. Co. v. Lowe, 12 Ind. App. 

 47; Marion St. R. Co. v. Carr, 10 id. 200; Muncie St. R. Co. v. Maynard, 



5 id. 372; Omaha St. R. Co. v. Duvall, 40 Neb. 29; Eastwood v. La 

 Crosse City R. Co., 94 Wis. 163; Bishop v. Belle City St. R. Co., 92 id. 

 139; East St. Louis & St. L. E. St. R. Co. v. Wachtel, 63 lU. App. 181; 

 Richter v. Cicero & P. St. R. Co., 70 id. 196; L'nes v. Winnipeg Elec. St. 

 R. Co., II Ma. 77. 



