198 INEVITABLE ACCIDENT. 



by some other person ; (a) or that a fog was so thick that 

 the coachman could not keep the road ; (h) or from fright 

 caused by another vehicle running into his own ; (c) or to 

 a misunderstanding between a driver who has called out 

 and the party injured by the van he was driving. (fZ) 

 Again, it has been held an inevitable accident if a horse 

 from inherent vice(e) suddenly become restive, and the 

 driver can prove that there was no fault in his want of 

 control over it ; mere restiveness is not prima facie evi- 

 dence of negligence. (/) Also, where a carriage horse 

 suddenly bolted, notwithstanding the coachman's utmost 

 efforts to control it, swerved on the footpath, and injured 

 a passenger, it was held there was no evidence of fault 

 to go to the jury, even although it was proved that the 

 horse cast a shoe shortly after bolting, and that the 

 driver gave no warning. (^) Thus also, damage caused by 

 a horse's takinsf an obstinate fit of backing has been held 

 an accident, (/i) Again, it was held to be an accident where 

 a horse, which had strayed into a wheat field, and was driven 

 back, while leaping a fence fell on a stake and was killed, 

 there being proof that the servant who drove it away did not 

 intend to injure it.(i) In a somewhat similar case, a stallion 

 broke out of a field in pursuit of some mares, and entered 

 the farm-close of a neighbouring farm, and a farm servant 

 beat it with a stake in order to drive it away ; the horse 

 died from a wound alleged to have been inflicted by a nail 

 in the stake, and it was held that the servant was not liable 



(a) Gibbons v. Pippci; 1 Loi-d iJaymond, 38. 



(h) Best, C.J., in Crofts v. Waterhouse, 1825, 3 Bing. 319. 



(c) Wakeman v. Robinson, 1823, 1 Bing. 213 ; Goodman v. Taylor, 1832, 5 C. 

 and P. 410, 



(d) Dochcrty v. Watson, 1884, 21 S.L.R. 449. 



(e) See § 109. 



{/) Hammach v. White, 18C2, 11 C.B., N.S. 588. 



(g) Manzoni v. Douglas, 1880, L.R. 6 Q.B.D. 145 ; see also Holmes v. Mather, 

 1875, L.R. 10 E.x. 2fil. 



(A) Pypcr V. Thomson, 1843, 5 D. 498. 

 {i) Ilerriot v. Unthank; 1827, 6 S. 211. 



