CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE GENERALLY. 199 



for the value of the horse, (a) But the least proof of negli- 

 gence will upset the theory of accident, as — e.g., the failure 

 to examine the axles of a public coach before the journey, or 

 taking a horse known to be restive to a public place. If, 

 however, in leading animals, such as bulls or stallions, along 

 the public thoroughfares, every reasonable precaution is taken, 

 the fact that damage is done gives no right of action. (6) 



161. Contributory Negligence generally. — When dam- 

 age has been proved to have been occasioned by negligence, 

 the party causing it will be absolved from blame if he can 

 show that the injury has been contributed to by the negli- 

 gence of the injured party ; (c) but his contribution to the 

 injury must be material. Thus, a plaintiff who had left his 

 ass tethered in a highway, and, therefore, unable to get out of 

 the way of the defendant's waggon, which was going smartly 

 along the hiofhwav, and ran into it, Avas found entitled to 

 recover ; the charge given to the jury was held correct upon 

 appeal — viz., " that though the act of the plaintiff in leaving 

 the donkey on the highway so fettered . . . might be illegal, 

 still if the proximate cause of the injury was attributable to 

 the want of proper conduct on the part of the driver of the 

 waggon, the action was maintainable against the defendant." (cZ) 

 Again, where a cabman attempted to lead his horse over 

 some rubbish wrongfouslv left in a lane, he was not found 

 disentitled to recover because he had at some hazard created 

 by the defenders brought his horse out of the stable, (e) 

 The principle of contributory negligence is thus explained by 

 Lord President Inglis : — " When an event is brought about 

 directly by the culpa of two persons, whether joint or several, 

 where the culpa of each has contributed to produce the event, 

 and the event would not have been produced but for the 



(a) Cumming v. TurnbuU, 1840, 2 D. 579. 



(b) Harpers v. G. N. Ry. Co., 1886, 13 K. 1139 ; PldlUps v. Nicoll, 1884, 11 R. 

 592 ; see also § 137. 



(c) Greenland v. Chaplin, 1850, 5 Ex. 243. 



(d) Davies v. Alann, 1842, 10 M. and W. 546. 

 (c) Clayards v. DUkick, 1848, 12 Q.B. 439. 



