200 CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE GENERALLY. 



culpa of both, there can be no claim as between these per- 

 sons for reparation for injury flowing from that event ; " (a) 

 and Lord Fitzgerald thus defines it : — " Contributory negli- 

 gence seems to me to consist in the absence of that ordinary 

 care which a sentient being ought reasonably to have taken 

 for his own safety, and Avhich, had it been exercised, Avould 

 have enabled him to avoid the injury of Avhich he complains, 

 or the doing of some act which he ought not to have done, 

 and but for which the accident would not have occurred." (h) 

 What amounts to ordinary care is purely a jury question ; 

 so is contributory negligence, and each case depends on its 

 own circumstances, (c) Thus, a person crossing a street, (cZ) 

 or leaving a tramcar, is bound to look about him to see that 

 he does not go in front of a vehicle, (e) and the failure to do 

 so amounts to contributory negligence. (/) In regard to what 

 amount of contributory negligence is sufficient to bar a claim 

 of damages at the instance of an injured party or his repre- 

 sentatives, the rule in Radley v. L. & K.-W. Ry. Go. is 

 authoritative, {g) Lord Penzance in that case observed : — 

 " The first proposition is a general one to this effect, that the 

 plaintiff in an action for negligence cannot succeed if it is 

 found by the jury that he has himself been guilty of any 

 negligence or want of ordinary care which contributed to 

 cause the accident. But there is another proposition equally 

 well established, and it is a qualification upon the first — 

 namely, that although the plaintiff" may have been guilty of 

 negligence, and although this negligence may in fact have 

 contributed to the accident, 3^et if the defendant could, in the 



(a) 3I'Naughton v. Caledonian Railway Company, 1858, 21 D. 160, 163. 



(6) V/akelin v. L. & S.-W. Ry. Co., 1886, L.R. 12 App. Ca. 41, 51 ; see also Tuff 

 V. Warman, 27 L.J., C.P. 322. 



(c) Greenland, cit. ; Clayards, cit. 



{d) Coleridge, J., in Woolf v. Beard, 1838, 8 C. and P. 373. 



(e) Ramsay v. Thomson, 1881, 9 R. 140; Jardine v. Stoncfield Laundry Com- 

 pany, 1887, 14 R. 839. 



(/) But see as to aged persons. Lord Justice-Clerk Moncreiff in Clerk v. Pctric, 

 1879, 6 R. 1076 ; and pupil children, see § 162. 



{g) Radley v. L. d- N.-W. Ry. Co., 1876, L.R. 1 App. Ca. 754, 759; see also 

 cases of Cotton, Haiokins, Williams, Siud Boss, cited § 142. 



