OK, The Turn Out. 197 



was seriously at fault, inasmuch as he had not kept a sufficient 

 look out as he wa- bound to do in order to prevent an accident ; 

 and every ordinary individual would at once jump to the conclu- 

 sion that as negligence was proved on the part of the defendants 

 the verdict would be for the plaintift'. Not so, however, for, with 

 all the force of an antithesis. Sir Rupert Kettle proceeds to show 

 that the defendants were, if not in the right, at any rate not in 

 the wrong, but that the plaintiff himself was the cause of the 

 accident, and deserved, therefore, not only to lose his ho rse and 

 imperil his Lfe, but to bear the costs of the action into the 

 bargain— a conclusion which the unfoitunate owner of the restive 

 horse will no doubt regard as equivalent to adding insult to injury. 

 The decision proceeds to point out that it was known to the 

 plaintiff's driver that his horse shyed at tramcars, but no extra 

 means of controlling him were provided ; that the defendant's 

 engineer had no knowledge that the horse was a shyer ; it was, 

 therefore, the plaintiff's duty, when his hor. e became restive, to 

 have promptly signalled warning to the engineer by some other 

 means than holding up his hand, or used more efficient means 

 to restrain his horse than pulling the reins. Upon these facts 

 judgment must go for defendants by reason of contributory 

 negligence. Now ' contributory negligence ' is a very good legal 

 phrase to conjure with, but it seems to us to be of questionable 

 appropriateness in the present instance. First of all, it has 

 nothing to do with the question that the plaintiff knew his horse 

 shyed at steam tramcars. If all the horses that shyed are to be 

 kept off the roads on this account, then one half of them would 

 have to be shot as useless. True his Honour points out an 

 alternative, for he refers to more eificient means of controlling a 

 horse than the reins. But what are these 'more efficient means f 

 Because if there are any such, drivers of horses would be very 

 glad to know them in order that they may be employed for the 

 safety of their own necks and their property. It is perfectly well 

 known to owners of spirited horses that once these animals come 

 into close contact with one of these road engines their terror 

 places them beyond all control, and they either make a sudden 

 swerve round in front of the car or dash on to the footpath, at the 

 imminent risk of coming into contact with a lamp post or other 

 obstacle. It follows, therefore, that if there are no means of 

 controlling a horse beyond the reins, the judgment is based upon 

 a wrong conception of the situation. Besides, there are some 

 portions of the roads over which the tramcars run so narrow as 

 to render it extremely perilous for the owner of a frightened 

 horse to attempt to pass one of these cars, and yet the speed at 

 which the cars travel make it impossible to get out of the w^ay in 

 time to avoid a collision. This question of speed would of course 

 be an important one in case of a fatality, but when a company's 

 officials swear that the speed, as in the case under review, was 

 only between four and six miles an hour and are believed in 



