NEGLIGENT DRIVING. 307 



The owner of a Cart or Carriage is bound to have good Damage from 

 tackle, and he is liable for an accident in consequence of its tackle break- 

 breaking ; as where the chain-stay of a Cart broke, and the ^^°' 

 Horse being frightened ran away and did damage {u) ; and 

 where, in consequence of the reins breaking, a foot passenger 

 was run over and injured (,r). 



So, also, in the following case, in which it appeared that Or from a de- 

 the defendant was driving his Cart down a hill, and the feet in the 

 Horse, which was usually quiet, suddenly commenced kick- ''^"^^o®- 

 ing, and proceeded at a furious pace. Eventually the shafts 

 broke, and the Horse and Cart came into collision with 

 the plaintiff's gig, and injured it. It was held that as 

 the breaking of the shafts showed a defect in the Cart, 

 which raised a presumption of negligence in the owner, he 

 was liable for the damage sustained by the plaintiff {>/) . 



The subject of Negligence on loth sides was fully con- Xcgllgenee en 

 sidered by the Court of Exchequer in Bridge v. The Grand ^^^^^ «'**• 

 Jnnetion Canal Company (s), and Mr. Baron Parke there 

 said, " The Rule of law is laid down with perfect correct- 

 ness in the case of Butterfield v. Forrester (a), that although 

 there may have been Negligence on the part of the 

 plaintiff, yet unless he might by the exercise of ordinary 

 care have avoided the consequence of the defendant's 

 Negligence, he is entitled to recover. But if by ordinary 

 care he might have avoided them, he is the author of his 

 own wrong." And in a later case (b) the law as deducible 

 from preceding decisions was thus laid down by Wight- 

 man, J., delivering the judgment of the Exchequer 

 Chamber : — " It appears to us that the proper question for 

 the Jury is, whether the damage was occasioned entirely 

 by the negligence or improper conduct of the defendant, 

 or whether the plaintiff himself so far contributed to the 

 misfortune by his own negligence, or want of ordinary and 

 common care and caution, that but for such negligence or 

 want of ordinary and common care and caution on his part, 

 the misfortune would not have happened. In the first 

 place, the plaintiff Avould be entitled to recover ; in the 

 latter not, as but for his own misconduct the misfortune 

 would not have happened. Mere negligence or want of 



(«) JFchh V. Lawrence, 2 Chit. (~) Bridge v. The Grand Jtmction 



262. Raihca;/ Co., 3 M. & W. 246. 



(a-) Cutkril v. Turley, 8 C. k P. («) Jlutterfeld v. Forrc&ter, 11 



693. East, GO. 



((/) Tewpleman y.Baydon, 19 L. [b) Tnffy. JFannan, 27 L. J., C. 



T. 218. P. 322. 



X2 



