uiniNo AM) nun iNo iiousks. 127 



caro, aiid in sucli a inaunor as not to cause niis- 

 cliiof. " Were tliis not so," said the Court, " a 

 man might justify diiving over goods left in a 

 public highway, or oven over a man lying asleep 

 there, or puii)Osely running against a carriage 

 going along the WTong side of the road"(/). So, 

 also, a di'iver should not drive round comers too Driver 



»..(,, , , should bo 



last ; II he do so, and runs over any person, or cautious iu 

 comes into collision with a carnage, even although found 

 such person or cai-riage are not on their right side, cori'ere. 

 he may find he cannot set up their wrongfulness 

 as contributory negligence, in an action brought to 

 recover compensation for injuiy {m). 



If a person, using ordinary care, is injured, or 

 if his horse is injured, by falling over a heap on 

 the highway, the person who left the heap will be 

 liable for any injury. But if an obstiniction has 

 been negligently placed in a public thoroughfare 

 by the defendant, and the plaintiff has ridden 

 against it, he cannot recover damages from the 

 defendant if it appears that he was riding at an 

 improper pace or was intoxicated, and could have 

 avoided the obstruction with ordinary and reason- 

 able care. " Thus," Lord Ellenborough said, "a 



{P) Davies v. Mann, 10 M. & W. 546. 



(wi) By the Court, in Mayor of Colchester v. Brooke, 7 Q. B. 

 375, " If a man diove furiously round a comer and injured a 

 person on the fui-ther side * * would not an averment of 

 negligence include all that was necessary to maintain an 

 action?" 



