RiniNf; AM) nun iNf; horses. ]'2i) 



tifT's gig injured it, it was liold that the breaking 

 of the shafts raised a presumption of negligeneo 

 in the owner of the cart, and he was held liaLle (q) . 



A foot passenger is not hound to keep on the Foot pas- 

 foot pavement ; he lias a right to walk in the have i? 

 carriageway, and is entitled to the exercise of ^v^^ikiuthe 

 reasonable care on the part of persons driving carriage- 

 carriages along it. In Coffcril v. Starhcij {>•) the 

 Court told the jury " 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." And it was held in And it is 

 Williatm V. Richanh (.s) that *' it is the duty of drivers to 

 persons who are driving over a crossing for foot slowly at a 

 passengers, to drive slowly, cautiously and care- crossing, 

 fully ; but it is also the duty of a foot passenger 

 to use due care and caution in going upon a cross- 

 ing, so as not recklessly to get among the car- 

 riages." But it would appear that the Courts do 

 not hold that the rule of the road applies to foot 

 passengers. *' The rule as to the proper side of 

 the road does not apply with respect to foot 

 passengers ; and as regards foot passengers, the 



{q) Temphman v. ITatjdn, 12 C. B. 507. 



(»■) 8 C. k P. C93: see also Boss v. Litton, o C. & P. 407 ; and 

 Lloyd \. Oghbii, 5 C. B., N. S. 6G7. 



(«) 3 C. & K. 82; and see Erie, C. J., remarks in Cotton v. 

 Wood, 8 C. B., N. S. 571. 



L. K 



