oj^us of proof. 181 



tion of providing a safe means of transit for passengers. 

 The obligations of proprietors of vehicles for the carriage of 

 persons are quite different from those that belong to them as 

 carriers of goods. In the latter case fault need not be proved, 

 and carriers must restore goods without enquiry, because the 

 owner cannot see or know what is done with them ; but with 

 passengers it is quite different. They, to a certain extent, 

 take care of themselves, and therefore cannot recover unless 

 they can prove fault on the part of the carrier,(a,) A coach 

 proprietor is bound to supply a road-worthy vehicle and 

 appurtenances reasonably fit for the purposes of transit. (6) 

 Reasonably fit, however, denotes something short of absolutely 

 fit, but the standard of fitness is " as fit and proper as care 

 and skill can make it."(c) 



148. Onus of Proof. — The general rule is that the injured 

 party must prove fault on the part of the proprietor of a 

 public vehicle or his servant ; but where the coach itself 

 breaks down, the presumption is against the proprietor, and 

 he must show that " all that man could do was done to pro- 

 vide against the accident." (cZ) In the case of breakage of 

 bolts or other fittings of his machine, it is not sufficient to 

 show that he had no reason to suppose there was any defect, 

 or that it could not have been discovered by ordinary 

 inspection. He must show that due insjDcction was made;(e) 

 but if it be shown that the accident is due solely to a defect 

 which no care or skill could detect, that will exonerate him 

 from liability.(/) If, however, the cause of the accident could 

 have been known by the proprietor, and he takes no precau- 

 tions to prevent it, he will be liable. Thus, where a passenger 



(a) Per Lord President Inglis in Fcrus v. N. B. Ry. Co., 1872, 9 S.L.R. G52 ; 

 Crafts V. Waterlwuse, 1825. 3 Bing. 319. 

 (6) Jones v. Bu]ice, 1816, 1 Starkie, 493. 



(c) Hyman v. Nye, 1881, L.R. 6 Q.B.D. 685. 



(d) Lyon v. Lamb, 1838, 16 S. 1188. 



(e) LLyman, cit. xnpra ; Bremner v. Williams, 1824, 1 C. and P. 414. 

 (/) Redhead V. Midland Ry. Co., 1867, L.R. 2 Q.B. 412. 



