418 WARE ANT Y 



But where a horse is returned with broken knees the letter must prove 

 negligence in the hirer [Cooper v. Burton, v. supra). 



If a horse fall ill during the hiring, and the hirer prescribes for it him- 

 self and the horse dies, he is liable, l:>ut not if lie calls in a farrier {Deane v. 

 Keate, 3 Camp. 4, 1811); also, if a horse become exhausted and refuse its 

 food, the hirer must discontinue the use of it {Bray v. Maine, C4ow. 1, and 

 see Edwards v. Carr, 13 Gray's Massachusetts Rep. 234, 1859). To sup- 

 port an action for negligence the rule is that there must l)e some affirma- 

 tive proof of negligence; where the evidence does not go to prove which 

 party failed to take proper care, the plaintiff Avill fail in his action. 

 Further, if there has been contributory negligence, that is if an accident 

 alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendant would not 

 have happened but for negligence on the part of the plaintiff, the latter 

 could not recover. The owner is also bound to supply strong and proper 

 harness where a horse is employed to draw any vehicle, and is liable if any 

 accident occurs through the reins breaking {Cotterill v. Starkey, S.C. v. 

 P. 693). It was there stated that " if a person driving along the road 

 cannot pull up because his reins break, that will be no ground of defence, 

 as he is bound to have proper tackle ". It was also decided in this case 

 that " a foot-passenger has a right to cross a highway, and persons driving 

 carriages along the road are liable if they do not take care, so as to avoid 

 driving against the foot-passengers who are crossing the road ". They are 

 also bound " to drive slowdy, cautiously, and carefully over a crossing for 

 foot-passengers ", while a correlative duty is cast upon the foot-passengers 

 " to use due care and caution in going upon a crossing, so as not recklessly 

 to get among the carriages [Williams v. Richards, 3 C. v. K. 82). "The 

 rule ", however, " as to the proper side of the road does not apply with 

 respect to foot-passengers; and as regards foot-passengers, the carriages 

 may go on whichever side they please" [Cotterill v. Tnjf). 



Where a job-master lets horses by the day, week, or job, and also 

 supplies the driver, he is generally responsible for all the injuries resulting 

 from careless driving; if, however, the hirer supplies the driver, he would 

 appear to be responsible for any accident or loss arising from negligence or 

 want of skill in such driver [Croft v. Alison, 4 B. v. Aid. 590). Where, 

 however, the letter supjjlies the driver, the hirer may make himself respon- 

 sible under certain circumstances, as where he takes upon himself the actual 

 manao-ement of the horses, or directs the driver to do somethino- unusual 

 or improper, in consequence of which an accident happens [Quarman v. 

 Burnett, 6 M. v. AV., 507). 



The mere fact of the hirer sitting on the box-seat alongside the driver 

 will not, however, as commonly supposed, relieve the latter of responsi- 



