UiniNf; AND 1)RI\ INf; iiorsks. 



125 



Ono of tlio most dillicult questions to dotormino 

 in trying actions of collision by vehicles, is the 

 question of contributory negligence. The diifi- Contribu- 

 cidty does not arise so much in the Superior Courts, lifrffncediK- 

 where a case is generally well sifted in Chambers [^,"[1,^6^'"' 

 by summons, eitlier for fui-ther and better par- pt-'.-souto 

 ticulars, or the like, but in County Courts, where 

 ordinarily there are no pleadings, and the question 

 has to bo settled then and there from the state- 

 ments of the advocates for the parties, and the 

 evidence of their respective witnesses. The rule 

 of the road is well understood, and an inference 

 may be drawn, where one party is shown to have 

 been on the wrong side of an imaginary line in 

 the middle of the road, that the collision was owing 

 to that party's negligence. Thus, if it is shown, 

 or admitted, that the plaintiff was driving at a 

 reckless pace on the right-hand side of the road, 

 and his vehicle came into collision with another 

 vehicle coming in the opposite direction, the driver 

 of which was not looking out, the inference would 

 be that if the plaintiif had been on his own side, 

 the collision woidd not have taken place, and that 

 if he sustained injury it was his own fault. In 

 legal phraseology, he would have been guilty of 

 contributory negligence, and a plaintiff cannot 

 recover damages, if but for his own negligence, 

 or that of the person who represents him, the 

 accident would not have happened, although 



