300 



NEGLIGENCE IN THE USE OF HORSES, ETC. 



Where driver 

 is indictable 

 under 24 & 25 

 Vict. 0. 100, 

 B. 35. 



Fm-ious driv- 

 ing in the 

 Metropolitan 

 Police Dis- 

 trict. 



Power of 

 Police Con- 

 stables. 



Conviction no 

 bar to action 

 of Trespass. 



Where party- 

 injured by 

 negligent 

 di'iviug may 

 maintain an 

 action. , 



Duty of dri- 

 vers of public 

 and private 

 vehicles. 



If any one be maimed or otherwise injured by the 

 "wanton and furious driving or racing," or by the "wilful 

 misconduct" of the driver of any public stage carriage, 

 the person so offending is guilty of a misdemeanor, and 

 indictable under the statute 24 & 25 Yict. c. 100, s. 35 {x). 



Under 2 & 3 Yict. c. 47, s. 54, every person who, within 

 the Metropolitan Police District, " shall ride or drive 

 furiously, or so as to endanger the life or limb of any per- 

 son, or to the common danger of the passengers in any 

 thoroughfare," is liable to a penalty of not more than 40.s. 



Police Constables are empowered to take a person into 

 custody without warrant, who may commit any such offence 

 " within view of any such Constable " («/) ; and this power 

 is not confined to cases where the offender's name and 

 residence is unknown (2) . 



A conviction for fmious cbiving under this Statute, 

 not alleging the oft'ence to have been committed within 

 view of the Police Constable, was held not to be a bar to 

 an action of Trespass against a Police Constable for the 

 arrest and detention of the party, although such convic- 

 tion was unappealed against and acquiesced in {a) . 



A party who sustains an injury from the careless or 

 negligent driving of another may maintain an action, 

 unless he has himself been guilty of such negligence or 

 want of due care as to have contributed or conduced to 

 the injury (b). 



The driver of a public vehicle is bound to be a skilful 

 driver, and any damage arising from his unskilful driving 

 is a ground of action. A less degree of skill is to be 

 looked for from the driver of a private vehicle, but he is 

 bound to drive with reasonable care and skill. Thus, in 

 the case of Collier v. Chaplin (c), which was an action 

 to recover damages for an injury to the plaintiff, and to 

 her clothes, from being upset by the defendant, when 

 driven by him, it appeared that the plaintiff at the de- 

 fendant's request took a drive with him in his cart, and 



(x) Re-enacting 1 Geo. 4, c. 4. 



(y) 2 & 3 Vict. c. 47, s. 54. 



(c) Justin: V. Gosling, 16 J. P. 105 

 (C. P.) ; 8. G. 21 L. J., C. P. 94 ; 

 2 & 3 Vict. 0. 47, s. 63. 



(«) Justice V. Gosling, 16 J. P. 105 

 (C. P.); ^. C. 21L. J.,C. P. 94. 



{b) See per Coltman, J., Thoro- 

 good V. Bryan, 8 C. B. 130. 



{c) Collier v. Chaplin, N. P., C. P. 

 cor. Byles, J., Westminster, Feb. 1, 

 1865. See also Moffat v. Batcman, 

 L. R., 3 P. C. 115 ; 22 L. T., N. S. 

 140 ; 6 Moore, P. C. C, N. S. 369 ; 

 Simsoii V. London General Omnibus 

 Co., L. R., 8 C. P. 390 ; 42 L. J., 

 C. P. 112; 28 L. T., N. S. 560; 

 21 AV. R. 565.; and Manzoni v. 

 Douglas, L. R.. 6 C. P. D. 145, 151. 



