NEGLIGENT DRIVING. 327 



So, in a case in which the defendant's Horse, being on "Wlien a Horse 

 a highway, kicked the pLaintiff, a child Avho was pLaying -"tancling in a 

 there. There being no evidence to show how the Horse kifkedTchild. 

 got to the spot, or that the defendant knew that he was 

 there, or that the defendant knew that he was accustomed 

 to kick, or that the Horse was accustomed to kick, or what 

 induced him to kick the child, it was held that there was 

 no evidence from which a Jury would be justified in in- 

 ferring that the defendant had been guilty of actionable 

 negligence ( //) . 



In Abbott V. Freeman iz), the defendant was the pro- Horse kicking 

 prietor of a yard and premises used for the sale of Horses, at Sale. 

 The plaintiff attendee! a sale, and was walking up the 

 yard behind a row of spectators, who were watching a 

 Horse then on sale. In order to show the Horse's pace, a 

 servant of the defendant led it with a halter -down a lane 

 formed by the spectators on one side, and a blank wall on 

 the other. There was no barrier between the Horse and 

 the spectators, and when the Horse was about ten yards 

 from the plaintiff, another servant of the defendant struck 

 it with a whip in order to make it trot. On being struck 

 the Horse swerved into and through the crowd, and kicked 

 and injured the plaintiff. It was a usual thing for a man 

 to be stationed with a whip at the particular point when 

 Horses where brought out for sale. There was no evidence 

 as to the kind of blow that was given, nor the character of 

 the Horse, nor how it was being led, nor that it was 

 customary to put a barrier for the protection of the public 

 in yards where Horses were being sold. The plaintiff 

 sued the defendant to recover damages for injuries caused 

 by the negligence of the defendant's servant ; and it was 

 held that there was no evidence upon which the Jury could 

 reasonably find negligence on the part of the defendant. 



But there are cases in which the mere occurrence of Accident itself 

 an accident is prima feicie proof of negligence, the pre- sonietimes 

 sumption depending upon the nature of the accident, proof of neo-- 

 Thus in a case in which the plaintiff, while walking in a ligence. 

 street in front of the house of a Hour-dealer, was injured 

 by a barrel of flour falling upon him from an upper 

 window, it was held that the mere fact of the accident 

 without any proof of the circumstances under which it 

 occurred was evidence of negligence to go to the Jm-y in 



0/) Cox V. Burhridrjc, 13 C. B., (;) 35 L. T., N. S. 783— C. A. 



N. S. 430. Reversing 34 L. T., N. S. 544— 



Ex. D. 



