182 INSUFFICIENT VEHICLE AND APPURTENANCES. 



in an omnibus was injured by a blow from one of the horses, 

 whicli had kicked through the front panel of the vehicle, 

 and there was no evidence on the part of the passenger that 

 the horse was a kicker, but it was proved there were marks 

 of other kicks on the panel, and that no precaution such as 

 a kicking strap was adopted to avert the consequences of 

 a horse kicking out, it was held tliere was evidence of 

 negligence to go to a jury. (a) 



149. Insufficient Vehicle and Appurtenances. — A coach 

 proprietor is liable if an accident occur from his using horses 

 of a vicious temper, or from his having a careless driver, 

 or from an ill-constructed coach. (6) Thus, where a mail 

 coach breaks do"\vn, as — e.g., by the breaking of the axle 

 tree and consequent fracture of a bolt ; (c) or where the 

 coach {(1) or harness is faulty in construction ; (e) or where 

 the driver is intoxicated,(/) or drives recklessly ,((/) or starts 

 his horses suddenly, (/i) unless there be proof of contri- 

 butory negligence, or that everything possible was done 

 to avert the accident, the proprietor is liable. Thus, in 

 one case, the pole of a mail coach broke, but did not 

 snap through ; the guard, without repairing it, desired the 

 coachman to go on. He proceeded at the usual rate and 

 the coach upset, either from the deficiency of the pole or 

 from the carelessness of the driver. It was held that the 

 owners were liable in damages for an injury sustained by a 

 passenger, (i) Moreover, it will not liberate the proprietors 

 that the injured party excited the coachman to over-drive ; 



(a) Simson v. L. G. Omnibus Co., 1873, L.K. 8 C.P. 390. 

 (6) Lord President Inglis in Fenis v. N. B. Ry. Co., 1872, 9 S.L.R. 652. 

 (c) Lyon v. Lamb, 1838, 16 S. 1188; Anderson v. Pyper, 1820, 2 Mur. 261 ; 

 ffyman v. Nye, 1881, L.R. 6 Q.B.D. 685. 



(rf) Curtis V. Drinh.cater, 1831, 2 B. and Ad. 169. 



(e) Cotterill v. Starkey, 1839, 8 C. and P. 693, 694, n. 



(/) Gunn V. Gardiner, 1820, 2 Mur. 194. 



(g) Gunn, cit. ; Elder v. Croall, 1849, 11 D. 1040. 



(A) Annand v. Aberdeen Tramways Co., 1890, 17 R. 808. 



{i) Spiers v. Drysdale, 1813, Hume, 316. 



