606 LIABILITY IfiRESPECTIVE OV FENCING LAWS. 



that the fright of other animals is a circumstance to be con- 

 sidered by the jury."* And the plaintifif's knowledge of 

 that fact has been held to be evidence of contributory neg- 

 ligence. *^° 



In order that there may be a recovery against the company, 

 the fright must have been the proximate cause of the injury. 

 If the collision results from the inability of a driver to control 

 his horse, and not from the w^rongdoing of the company, 

 there can be no recovery. ^^^ But where fire was negligently 

 allowed to fall on a horse from an elevated railway, frighten- 

 ing the animal and causing injury to the plaintiff, it was held 

 that the company was liable, although the driver may not 

 have acted most prudently : the latter's act was to be regarded 

 as a continuation of the company's act which was, therefore, 

 the proximate cause of the injury. '^^ And where a horse, 

 frightened by the blowing off of steam, ran off and the de- 

 fendant's yardman sprang in front of it and struck at it, as a 

 result of which it swerved and injured the plaintiff, it was held 

 that fright was the proximate cause of the injury.^''* Where 

 a horse, frightened by the wanton blowing of a whistle, runs 

 away and kills another horse, the owner of the latter may 

 recover from the company.^^® But where a frightened horse 

 jumped over cattle-guards and was injured in a bridge, it was 

 held that fright was not the proximate cause and there was 

 no basis of recovery.'^" Where a company negligently 

 frightened cattle that ran along the road and got into an 



'"'Mo. Pac. R. Co. V. Hill, 71 Tex. 451; Harrell v. Albemarle & R. 



R. Co., no N. C. 21s; Gordon v. Boston & M. R. Co., 58 N. H. 396. 



And see § 66, supra. 



"' Pittsb. South. R. Co. v. Taylor, 104 Pa. St. 306. 



"° Barringer v. N. Y. Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 18 Hun (N. Y.) 398. 



See Chic. & N. R. Co. v. Prescott, 59 Fed. Rep. 237. 



"' Lowery v. Manhattan R. Co., 99 N. Y. 158. 



'" Belt V. San Antonio & A. P. R. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 37 S. W. Rep. 

 .362. 



"" Billman v. Indianapolis, C. & L. R. Co., 76 Ind. 166. 



"° Lynch v. North. Pac. R. Co., 84 Wis. 348. 



