NEGLIGENT DRIVING. 317 



the injury was caused by negligently lowering goods 

 from the warehouse, under which the private way 

 passed (//). 



In Clarke v. Chambers (Ji) the defendant, who was in Even where 

 the occupation of certain premises abuttino: on a private ^}^^?-^J caused 



1 •/• • ~i c I ^ • ^ ^ • byintervenmsT 



road consisting oi a carriage and footway, which premises act of third 

 he used for the purposes of athletic sports, had erected party. 

 a barrier across the road to prevent persons driving 

 vehicles up to the fence surrounding his premises and 

 overlooking the sports. In the middle of this barrier was 

 a gap, which was usually open for the passage of vehicles, 

 but which, when the sports were going on, was closed by 

 means of a pole let down across it. It was admitted 

 that the defendant had no legal right to erect this bar- 

 rier. Some person, without the defendant's authority, 

 removed a part of the barrier armed with spikes, com- 

 monly called cJieraux-de-friac, from the carriage-way where 

 the defendant had placed it, and put it in an upright 

 position across the footpath. The plaintiff, on a dark 

 night, was lawfully passing along the road on his way 

 from one of the houses to which it led. He felt his way 

 through the opening in the middle of the barrier, and 

 getting on the footpath was proceeding along it when his 

 eye came in contact with one of the spikes of the cJtcvanx- 

 de-frise and was injured. It was not suggested that the 

 plaintiff was guilty of any negligence contributing to the 

 accident, and the Jury found that the use of the chevaux- 

 de-frise in the road was dangerous to the safety of the per- 

 sons using it. It was held, that the defendant, having un- 

 lawfully placed a dangerous instrument in the road, was 

 liable in respect of injuries occasioned by it to the plaintiff, 

 who was lawfully using the road, notwithstanding the fact 

 that the immediate cause of the accident was the inter- 

 vening act of a third party in removing the dangerous 

 instrument from the carriage-way (A) . 



Although where a Contractor does what he contracts to Liability of 

 do, the act of the employed is the act of the employer ; yet Contractor. 

 where the act to be done is lawful, the Contractor is liable 

 for anything done negligently, or beyond his contract {i). 

 But a Contractor lawfully employed to construct a sewer 

 under a road, is not liable for injury caused to an in- 



io) Gallagher v. Humphcry, 6 L. 38 L. T., N. S. 454. 



T., N. S. 684. (0 Ellis v. Sheffield Gas Co., 23 



[h) Clark v. Chambers, L. R., 3 L. J., Q. B. 42; Gray v. Fiillen, 32 



Q. B. D. 327; 47 L. J., Q. B. 427; L. J., Q. B. 169. 



