HIKING HORSES. 245 



The fact tliat the defendant has taken all reasonable 

 and proper care to provide a fit and proper Carriage is not 

 sufficient, and this was so held in the recent case of 

 Hyman v, Ni/e{)'), in which the point was very fully- 

 discussed. In that case the plaintiff hired from the de- 

 fendant, a jobmaster, for a specified journey a Carriage, 

 a pair of Horses, and a driver. During the journey a 

 bolt in the underpart of the Carriage broke, the splinter bar 

 became displaced, the Horses started off, the Carriage was 

 upset, and the plaintiff injured. In an action against the 

 defendant for negligence, the jury were directed that, if in 

 their opinion the defendant took all reasonable care to 

 provide a fit and proper Carriage, their verdict ought to be 

 for him. The Jury found a verdict for the defendant, and 

 in particular that the Carriage was reasonably fit for the 

 purpose for which it was hired, and that the defect in the 

 bolt could not have been discovered by the defendant by 

 ordinary care and attention. A rule having been ob- lT>jmanv.Xt/e. 

 tained, calling upon the defendant to show cause why 

 there should not be a new trial on the ground of mis- 

 direction, and that the verdict was against the weight of 

 the evidence, Lindley, J., in the course of his judgment 

 said, "A careful study of the authorities leads me to the 

 conclusion that the learned judge at the trial put the duty 

 of the defendant too low. A person who lets out Car- 

 riages is not, in my opinion, responsible for all defects 

 discoverable or not ; he is not an insurer against all defects; 

 nor is he bound to take more care than coach proprietors, 

 or railway companies who provide Carriages for the public 

 to travel in ; but, in my opinion, he is bound to take as 

 much care as they ; and although not an insurer against 

 all defects, he is an insurer against all defects which 

 care and skill can guard against. His duty appears to 

 me to be to supply a Carriage as fit for the purpose for 

 which it is hired as care and skill can render it ; and if 

 whilst the Carriage is being properly used for such purpose 

 it breaks down, it becomes incumbent on the person who 

 has let it out to show that the break down was in the proper 

 sense of the word an accident, and not preventible by 

 any care or skill. If he can prove this, as the defendant 

 did in Christie v. Griggs [s), and as the railway company 

 did in Eeadhead v. Midland Rail. Co. (/), he will not be 



()•) L. R., 6 Q. B. D. 685. (0 L. E,., 2 Q. B. 412 ; 36 L. J., 



(•s) 2 Camp. 80. Q. B. 181. 



