RULE or THE ROAD. 329 



And where an action was brought for negligently Does not jus- 

 driving against the plaintifJ's Horse, it appeared that ^^^ ^ wanton 

 the defendant's Chaise came out of another road, and in ^^J'^^' 

 crossing over to its right side broke the leg of the plain- 

 tiff's Horse, which was then on the wrong side of the 

 road. Lord Ellenborough held that the circumstance of 

 the person being on the wrong side of the road was not 

 sufficient to discharge the defendant ; for though a person 

 might be on his wrong side of the road, if the road was 

 of sufficient breadth, so that there was full and ample 

 room for the party to pass, he was of opinion that he was 

 bound to take that course which would carry him clear 

 of the person who was on his wrong side ; and that if an 

 injury happened by running against such a person he 

 would be answerable. A person being on his wrong side 

 of the road could not justify another in wantonly doing 

 an injury which might be avoided. The question, there- 

 fore, to be left to the Jury was, whether there was such 

 room, that, though the plaintiff's servant was on his wrong 

 side of the road, there was sufficient room for the defend- 

 ant's Carriage to pass between the plaintiff's Horse and the 

 other side of the road {//). 



And in another similar case it was held by the Court of Rule of the 

 King's Bench, that whatever might be the law of the road, ^o^.'^^ot m- 

 it was not to be considered as inflexible and imperatively 

 governing cases where Negligence was the question. In 

 the crowded streets of the Metropolis situations and cir- 

 cumstances might frequently arise where a deviation from 

 what is called the law of the road would not only be justi- 

 fiable but absolutely necessary. Of this the Jury are the 

 best Judges ; and, independently of the law of the road, it 

 is their province to determine from whose Negligence the 

 accident has arisen (*). 



On the same principle, apparently, it has been laid down Light load 

 in the United States that a traveller on foot or on horse- meeting 

 back must give way to and, if necessary, cross the road for ^^^^^' 

 a vehicle with a heavy load (/.), and that a lightly-loaded 

 vehicle must, in like manner, give way to a heavily-loaded 

 one (/). 



Though the rule of the road is not to be adhered to, if Parties meet- 



Case of the Commerce, 3 Rob. Adm. N. S. 667. 



Cas. 287. (/) Beach v. Parmcio; 23 Penn. 



[h) Clay V. Wood, 5 Esp. 42. St. 196. 



(/) Waijde V. Ladij Can; 2 D. & (/) Gricr v. Scidijjso/i, 27 Penn. 



E. 256 ; Llo>/d v. Or/lebij, 5 C. B., St. 183. 



