204 VOLENTI NON FIT INJURIA. 



pany for furnishing him with a horse unfit for Avork, on the 

 ground that he was aware of the danger of working with 

 it.(a) In another case, a plaintiff was employed for a 

 wharfinger, who, for the purposes of his business, employed 

 horses and carts, the plaintitf's duty being to drive the horses 

 and load and unload the carts. One of the horses supplied 

 was so vicious as to be unfit to be driven, even by a careful 

 driver. The plaintiff objected to drive this horse, and told 

 the foreman that it was unfit to be driven, to which the 

 foreman replied that be must continue to drive it, and that 

 his employer would be resjDonsible if an}^ accident happened. 

 The plaintiff continued to drive the horse, and whilst sitting 

 in his proper place was kicked by it, and his leg was broken. 

 It was held, inter alia, that the horse was "plant," under 

 the Em2)loyers Liabihty Act, and that upon the facts a 

 jury might find the defendant to be liable, for there was evi- 

 dence of negligence on the part of his foreman, and that the 

 circumstances did not show conclusively that the risk was 

 voluntarily incurred by the plaintiff.(6) Again, a stable boy 

 was ordered by his master to tie up an entire horse in its 

 stable, and was bitten by it. He raised an action against his 

 master, averring that the horse was vicious and dangerous, 

 that it had previously bitten other people, and that he had 

 been five years in his master's employment as a carter, and 

 five months as stable boy. The action was held irrelevant, 

 on the ground that the stable boy, of his own choice, con- 

 tinued to work in face of the danger, (c) In another case, 

 under very similar circumstances, the question of known 

 danger was not raised, the evidence turning on whether or 

 not the horse of a tramway company was a dangerous 

 animal. (((5) Again, where an injured carter sued his employer 



(a) Crichlon v. Keir, 1863, 1 M. 407. 



(h) Yarmouth v. France, cit. 



(c) Fraser v. Hood, 1887, 15 R. 178 (where it %v.as held that horses are "plant," 

 under the Employers Liability Act) ; see also lliomas v. Qtiartermainc, 1887, 

 L.R. 18 Q.B.D. 657. 



((/) Ilaston V. Ed'mhur'jh JStrcrt 2'ramicays Co., 1887, 14 R. 621. 



