NEGLIGENT DRIVING. 323 



directions to bring back witb bim anotber Horse, wbicb 

 bad been left on tbe road. Wben tbe servant obtained 

 possession of the second Horse, wbicb seemed to bave 

 been in tbe babit of following the Van witbout being 

 tied, be gave a boy permission to ride bim. As tbe ser- 

 vant drove on, be came upon tbe plaintiff wbo was re- 

 turning borne late at nigbt witb a band-barrow, and, 

 seeing bim, be turned bis Horse's bead out of bis direct 

 line to avoid bim. Tlie boy and Horse bebind, bowever, 

 went on witbout noticing tbe plaintiff, and tbe conse- 

 quence was tbey both fell over bim and severely injured 

 bim. On tbe trial Cbief Baron Pollock nonsuited tbe 

 plaintiff, being of opinion tbat tbe defendant was not 

 liable for this, and ruled tbat tbe declaration was not 

 supported, as tbe Horse wbicb did tbe injury was not 

 conducted or driven by tbe servant of tbe defendant. 

 And tbe Court of Exchequer afterwards beld tbat tbe 

 Chief Baron's ruling was correct, and that tbe facts clearly 

 showed that tbe injury sustained by the plaintiff was tbe 

 result of the purest accident {k). 



This was held to be the case, where the defendant's Where it is 

 Horse, being frightened by the sudden noise of a butcher's the resuitof a 

 cart, which was driven f m-iously along tbe street, became ^^ ^ Horsef ^ 

 ungovernable, and plunged the shaft of a gig into the 

 breast of the plaintiff's Horse (/). So, too, where a Horse 

 ridden by the defendant was frightened by a clap of 

 thunder, and ran over tbe plaintiff, wbo was incautiously 

 standing witb others in the carriage-road («?). 



And in the case of Hammack v. White {n), in which the iTammacJcx. 

 defendant bought a Horse at Tattersall's, and the next ^^''"^^• 

 day took him out to try bim in Finsbury Circus, a much- 

 frequented thoroughfare ; and from some unexplained 

 cause the Horse became restive, and notwithstanding the 

 defendant's well-directed efforts to control him ran upon 

 the pavement, and killed a man, it was held that these 

 facts disclosed no evidence of negligence, which the Judge 

 was warranted in submitting to the Jury. And Erie, 

 C. J., said, " I am of opinion that the plaintiff in a case of 

 this sort is not entitled to bave his case left to the Jury, 

 unless he gives some affirmative evidence that there has 

 been negligence on the part of the defendant. The sort 



(/;) Bird v. Hharpc, Ex. Nov. 5, (jh) Gibbons v. Tipper, 1 Ld. 



1853. Rayra. 38. 



(/) Walccman v. Robinson, 1 Bing. («) Ilammncic v. Wliitc, H C. B., 



213. N. S. 588. 



y2 



