RULE OF THE ROAD. 331 



SO as to avoid driving against the Foot passengers who are 

 crossing the road ; and if a person diiviug along the road 

 cannot pnll up because his reins break, that will be no 

 ground of defence, as he is bound to have proper tackle." 



" With respect to what has been said about the Car- Rule of the 

 riage being on the wrong side of the road, I think you ^°^^ <ioes not 

 should lay it out of your consideration, as the Hule as to ^^^ ^' 

 the proper side of the road does not apply with respect to 

 Foot passengers ; and as regards the Foot passengers, the 

 Carriages may go on whichever side of the road they 

 please" (>•). 



It is the duty of a person, who is driving over a cross- Going over a 

 ing for Foot passengers at the entrance of a Street, to drive "'°''*^^^S- 

 slowly, cautiously and carefully; but it is also the duty of 

 a Foot passenger to use due care and caution in going upon 

 such crossing, so as not to get among the Carriages, and so 

 receive injury {s). 



If there be a nuisance in a public highway, a private in- Nuisance on 

 dividual cannot of his own authority abate it, unless it does P^^^ilic lngh- 

 him a special injury, and he can only interfere with it so ^^'"^^ 

 far as is necessary to exercise his right of passing along 

 the highway ; and he cannot justify doing any damage to 

 the property of the person who has improperly placed the 

 nuisance in the highway, if, avoiding it, he might have 

 passed on with reasonable convenience (t). 



A Tradesman may remove a Horse and Cart or Car- Horse and 

 riage from before his door, if it impedes his business. 1''^.^™^*] ^,^' 

 Thus if a Hackney Coach stands before a Shopkeeper's man's door, 

 door, and hinders customers, he may lawfully take hold of 

 the Horses and lead them away, and is not bound to take 

 his remedy for damages [u). 



NEGLIGENT DRIVING BY A SERVANT. 



It was formerly held that the Master was liable only When the 

 where his servant caused injury by doing a lawfal act ^^'-^^^^^^ T!^^.^ 

 ncfjJicjenthj, but not where he icilfuUij did an illegal one ; ing to former 

 and, therefore, in cases of negligent driving, where the decisions. 



(r) Cotteril v. Turin/, 8 C. & P. (0 See Judgment of Court of 



693. See also Llotjd v. Otjlvbi/, Queen's Beucli, JJlmcs v. Fctlcij, 



5 C. B., N. S. 667. 15 Q. B. 288; Bridge v. Grand 



(s) See per Pollock, C. B., 7/1/- Jiniction Railway Co., 3 M. & W. 



Hams V. Richards, 3 C. & K. 82 ; 244 ; Davies v. 3Iann, 10 M. & W. 



and see Boxodcn v. Sherman, Ap- 54G; Mayor of Colchester y. Brooke, 



pendix. See also Cotton v. If^ood, 7 Q. B. 339. 

 8 C. B., N. S. 568. («) Slater v. Suwin, 2 Str. 872. 



