320 NEGLIGENCE IN THE USE OF HORSES, ETC. 



being the performance of an ordinary domeHflc duty, the 

 defendant was liable for the injury sustained {u). 

 Manure left In another case, some Manure left on a Highway for 



on a road. ^ ^^^^ ^^^ removed, and a carriage was upset by it at 

 night. No great damage was done to the carriage, and it 

 was driven home ; but about an hour after arriving there, 

 one of the Horses died suddenly, and it was proved that 

 the death was caused by an injury sustained by falling 

 over the Manure. An action was brought against A. for 

 the damage, and a verdict obtained against him ; but it 

 was afterwards doubted on the evidence, whether he or the 

 person w^ho left it was responsible (.r). 

 With regard If in the execution of works authorized by Act of Par- 

 cutTd under^" li^ment damage be sustained, and the Act provides a special 

 Local Acts. mode in which compensation for such damage may be 

 recovered, no action will lie for it. But this only relates 

 to works carefully and skillfully executed, and if there be 

 a want of proper skill on the part of those executing the 

 works an action for the negligence, to recover damages for 

 the injury thus sustained, will lie (//). 

 Both parties to Where the Negligence of both parties concurs in pro- 

 ducing the damage, so that both are to blame, neither 

 party can recover. Thus, where the plaintiff, in crossing 

 a road, was knocked down and seriously injured by the 

 defendant's Cart, Chief Justice Tindal told the Jury that 

 they must be satisfied that the injury was attributable to 

 the Negligence of the driver and to that aIo)ie, before they 

 could find a verdict for the plaintifi^ ; for if they thought 

 that it was occasioned in a)iy degree by the improper con- 

 duet of the plaintiff in crossing the road in an incautious 

 and imprudent manner, they must find their verdict for 

 the defendant (z) . And where an action was brought for 

 an injury to the plaintiff's Chaise by the defendant's Car- 

 riage, Mr. Justice Alderson left it to the Jury to say 

 whether the injury was occasioned by Negligence on the 

 part of the defendant's servant, without any Negligence 

 on the part of the plaintiff himself ; for that if the plain- 

 tiff's Negligence in any way concurred in producing the 

 injury, the defendant would be entitled to the verdict {a). 



{/() M'Kcon V. Bolton, 3 Ir. Jur. sioncrs, 33 L. J., Q. B. 296. 

 288 (Q. B. Ir.). (--) ITaickuis v. Cooper, 8 C. & P. 



(.r) Gassiot v. Carpmael, 19 L. T. 473. 

 64, 94. {fi) Tluchu-dl v. JTilmi, Bart., 5 



{!/) Clothier v. Webster, 31 L. J., C. & P. 375. 

 C. P. 316; Ohrli!/ y. Bydc Commis- 



blame. 



