IJG 



IIORSK W \UUAM Y. 



A (li'foiiil- 

 aiit winiiot 

 8ft up cou- 

 tributory 

 no(;li<»ouce 

 if such 

 iK'^tlifji'iico 

 indirect. 



thoro was nogligoncc nii tho ]iart of the defen- 

 dant (/). 



There may bo, however, and frequently are, 

 cases where tho negligence on the ]tart of the 

 plaintiff is so remotely connected witli the cause 

 of the ijijury, tliat it cannot be called "contri- 

 butory negligence" in tho legal sense; in other 

 words, where the negligence of the plaintiff, al- 

 though admitted, did not actually contribute to 

 the accident or injury, — the question then is, could 

 the defendant, by tho exorcise of ordinary skill 

 and care, have avoided inflicting the injury ? If 

 he could, the indirect negligence of the plaintiff 

 cannot be set up by tho defendant as an answer to 

 the action (A) : as where tlie plaintiff negligently 

 left his donkey on tho public highway, and tethered 

 by the forefeet, and the defendant carelessly drove 

 over and killed tho ass with his horse and waggon 

 in broad daylight — the donkey not being able to 

 get out of the way, — it was held that the negli- 

 gence of the plaintiff in leaving the ass on the 

 highway was no answer to the action ; for although 

 the animal might have Ijoen wrongfully there, tho 

 defendant was bound to travel on the road with 



(i) Jlatrkina v. Cuoprr, 8 C. & P. 473 ; M'aUr v. North EnsUrn 

 Rait. Co., VAX. B. & EU. 710; 27 L. J., Q. B. 417; 28 L. J., 

 Q. n. 25H; Unihje v. Grand J. Hail. Co., 3 M. & W. 211; 

 Ad<wu V. Lan. ^ York. Hail. Co., L. It., 4 U. V. 739 ; 38 L. J., 

 C. r. 277. 



{k) (Irnnlaiid v. Chaplin, 5 Kx. 210; Liick/ord v. I.argr, h 

 C. A: r. 421. 



