NEGLIGENT DRIVING. 311 



for the plaintiff. It is now complained that such direction 

 was not given ; and, at all events, the Jury are said to 

 have given a verdict contrary to the evidence. The case 

 came on in the new trial paper last term, and has been 

 fully argued before us." 



" It is urged that the mischief was not produced by 

 the mere Negligence of the servant, as asserted in the ' 

 declaration, but at most by that Negligence, in combina- 

 tion with two other active causes, the advance of the 

 Horse in consequence of his being excited by the other 

 boy, and the plaintiff's improper conduct in mounting the 

 Cart, and so committing a trespass on the defendant's 

 chattel. On the former of these two causes no great stress 

 was laid, and I do not apprehend that it can be necessary 

 to dwell upon it at any length ; for if I am guilty of 

 Negligence in leaving any thing dangerous in a place 

 where I know it to be extremely probable that some other 

 person will unjustifiably set it in motion to the injury of a 

 third, and if that injury should be so brought about, I 

 presume that the sufferer might have redress by action 

 against both or either of the two, but unquestionably 

 against the first. If, for example, a Gamekeeper, re- 

 turning from his daily exercise, should rear his loaded gun 

 against a wall in the playground of schoolboys whom he 

 knew to be in the habit of pointing toys in the shape of 

 guns at one another, and one of them should playfully fire 

 it off at a schoolfellow and maim him, I think it will not 

 be doubted that the Gamekeeper must answer in damages 

 to the wounded party. This might j)ossibly be assumed 

 to be clear in principle, but there is also the authority of 

 the present Chief Justice (/) of the Common Pleas in its 

 support in IlUdge v. Goodwin " {m). 



" But in the present case an additional fact appears. 

 The plaintiff himself has done wrong ; he had no right to 

 enter the Cart ; and, by abstaining from so doing, he 

 would have escaped the mischief. Certainly he was a 

 co-operating cause of his own misfortune by doing an 

 unlawful act ; and the question arises, whether that fact 

 alone must deprive the child of his remedy. The legal 

 proposition that one who has by his own Negligence con- 

 tributed to the injury of which he complains, cannot 

 maintain his action against another in respect of it, has 

 received some qualifications. Indeed Lord EUenborough's 



(/) Chief Justice Tindal. [m) IllUhje v. Goodwin, 5 C. & P. 190. 



