FOOT-PASSENGERS. 177 



it to the appellant to get out of the way or take tlie conse- 

 quences, (a) 



Tliis duty is all the more strict if the person in tlie road 

 be frail,(6) old,(c) deaf or very young. ((/) And accordingly a 

 negligent driver cannot escape liability by proving that if the 

 injured party had gone to the one side or the other, or had 

 stood still, no accident would have happened, the principle 

 being that a person who by his misconduct places another m 

 such a dilemma is responsible for what happens, (e) But if 

 the passenger, by his own want of cautiou, come in front of 

 a vehicle and is injured, as — e.g., by getting out on the wrong 

 side of a tramcar, the driver of the vehicle is not Hable.C/) 



143. Vehicles — The Koads and Bridges Act, incorporat- 

 ing a clause in the General Turnpike Act, rendered statutory 

 the general rule that when vehicles meet they must pass each 

 other on the left side, and enforced this by a penalty not 

 exceeding £5 over and above the damages occasioned by 

 failure to observe it.{g) In crossing, the driver must bear to 

 the left and pass behind the other carriage,(/i) and one overtak- 

 ing another must pass on the right, (i) In theory the rule of 

 the road is this : "The highway is divided into two parts, 

 half of it being appropriated to the traffic going the one way 

 and half to the traffic going the other way.' When the two 

 traffics meet they are bound to keep each other on the whip or 

 right side ; thus each is restricted to one half of the highway. 

 When one vehicle is coming in the same direction as another 



(a) Anderson v. Blackwood, 1886, 13 It. 443, 445. 



(6) Boss V. Litton, 1832, 5 C. and P. 407, where a paralytic was run over, and 

 cases cited in § 131. 



(c) Clerk v. Pctrie, 1879, 6 E. 1076. 



(d) See § 162, contributory negligence of pupil children. 



(e) Lord Ellenborough in Jones v. Boyce, 1816, 1 Stark. 493, 495 ; Chrk, cit. 

 (/) Ramsay v. Thomson d- Sons, 1881, 9 R. 140 ; see § 160; Jardinev. Stoneficld 



Laundry Co., 1887, 14 R. 839. 



(y) 41 & 42 Vict. c. 51, § 123 (Scb. C, § 97). 



(A) Wayde v. Lady Carr, 1823, 2 Dowl. and R. 255. 



(i) Cliaplin V. Ilawes, 1828, 3 C. and P. 554 ; Lord Young in Rainsay v. Thom- 

 son (L- Sons, cit. supra. 



N 



