176 FOOT-PASSENGERS. 



on the carriage way in the most crowded thoroughfare he 

 does so entirely at his own risk, and such an act is strong 

 evidence of liis ijoinsjf in face of a known dan<^er. When 

 passengers and vehicles are on the road, there arise reciprocal 

 duties of keeping out of each other's way. Thus Chief- 

 Justice Pollock observed : — " It is the duty of persons who 

 are driving over a crossing for foot-passengers to drive slowly, 

 cautiously, carefully ; but it is also the duty of a foot- 

 passenger to use due care and caution in going upon a 

 crossing at the entrance of a street so as not to get among 

 the carriages, and thus receive injury," (a) and Chief- Justice 

 Erie said : — " It is as much the duty of foot-passengers in 

 crossing the street or road to look out for passing vehicles as 

 it is the duty of drivers to see that they do not run over 

 foot-passengers. "(6) The tendency of recent decisions in Scot- 

 land, however, is that the driver must avoid the foot-passenger. 

 Thus Lord Justice-Clerk Moncreiff said : — " There is no doubt 

 as to the relations between wheeled vehicles and persons on 

 the road. . . . There is no doubt that it lies on the driver to 

 keep clear of foot-passengers. If a person is guilty of such 

 fault as to increase the burden of that obligation, that is 

 another matter, but the primary obligation is undoubted to 

 keep clear of foot-passengers ;"(c) and Lord Young to the same 

 effect said: — " A man may stupidly get into the way of a 

 carriage. I express no opinion on such cases as that, for each 

 case of that kind must be judged by its own circumstances, and 

 it may be that a driver having a clear road before him may 

 count on an intelligent, and even an unintelligent, being not 

 getting in before his horse, and might not be responsible for 

 his doing so, but here the man was walking steadily along 

 the road, and the van came up behind him and knocked him 

 down. And my verdict is, that the driver was to blame for 

 not pulling up or turning aside, but going straight on, leaving 



(a) Williams v. Richards, 1852, 3 C. and K. 81. 



(6) Cotton V. Wood, 1860, 8 C.B., I^.S. 568, 571. See also IlaivJcins v. Cooper,. 

 1838, 8 C. and P. 473. 

 (c) M'Kcchniev. Coupcr, 1887, 14 R. 345. 



