122 THE LIABILITY OF COMMON CARRIEKS. 



to carry horses for hire,(a) when offered at a reasonable 

 time,(6) unless he does not profess to carry them, or has no 

 convenient means of doing so ; (c) and, by holding himself 

 out in a public character, he is under certain fixed responsi- 

 bilities and obligations concerning what is entrusted to his 

 care.((Z) Thus railway, canal, and shipping companies are 

 common carriers of live stock, apart from any limitation 

 statutory (e) or stipulated. So are lightermen, wharfingers (/) 

 and ferrymen. Thus, the lessees of a ferry were found 

 liable for injury sustained by a horse in consequence of a 

 side-rail of the landing slip giving way, although the horse 

 was at the time under the control of its owner. ((/) 



93. The Liability of Common Carriers.(/i) — A common 

 carrier has, by the common law of both Scotland and 

 England, a more enlarged responsibility than exists in the 

 case of carrier by contract, being bound to make good all 

 loss or damage to what is entrusted to him for carriage, 

 although no fault or neglect can be proved against him, 

 unless it is due to inevitable accident,(i) the act of God or 

 the Queen's enemies, or inherent vice of the animal 

 carried,(^') or the fault of the consignor or consignee, and the 

 loss is prima facie presumed to be due to a cause for which 

 the carrier is responsible, the onus prohandi being upon 

 him to exempt himself from blame, (/v) If, hoAvever, the 

 owner assumes the care and custody of it himself, instead of 



(a) Best, J., in R'dcy v. Home, 1828, 5 Bing. 217. 



(h) § 95. 



(c) Johnson v. Mid. Ry. Co., 1849, 4 Ex. 367 ; Iloucy v. Lovel, 1826, 4 S. 752. 



((Z)B. Pr. 160, § 93. 



(c) 11 Geo. IV. and 1 Will. IV. c. 68 ; 28 & 29 Vict. c. 94 ; 17 & 18 Vict, 

 c. 104, § 503 ; 17 & 18 Vict. c. 31. 



(/) When they combine the trade of lightermen, but not unless ; E. Pr. 236. 



(g) Willourjlihy V. ITorridr/e, 1852, 12 C.B. 742. 



(/i) B.C. i. 496, ct seq. ; 1 Smith's L.O. 236, ct seq. 



(i) § 108. 



(i) § 109. 



(k) Mucnamara, Art. 54. See Smith v. M. Ry. Co., 1887, 57 L.T. 813, where 

 evidence was equally consistent with negligence and inherent vice of animals 

 carried. Verdict for railway company. 



