KiniNo AM) nuiviNf; ironsES. l-Tl 



result of ft>ar, and a friglitenod liorso often be- 



comos totally unnianageaLlo, and it may bo said, 



forgetful of all he has ever learnt or practised. In 



Clay V. Woo<l{z) the defence was that the plaintiff's 



horse was on tlio wrong side of the road when the 



collision took place. It appeared that as the 



plaintiff was driving along, the defendant drove 



his chaise out of a cross road, and in trying to 



cross over to its right side, ran against the plaintiff's 



horse and broke its leg ; and Lord EUenborough 



ruled, that though a person may be on the wrong Eulo of the 



side of the road, if the road was wide enough, so absolute. 



that there was room for another party to pass, the 



latter was bound to take the coui'se which would 



clear the person on the wrong side, and tliat if an 



injury happened by ninniug against such person 



he woidd be answerable. A person being on his 



wrong side of the road would not justify another 



in Avantonly doing an injury which might be 



avoided. Still if persons driving meet on a sudden 



and an injury results, the party on the wrong side 



is answerable, unless he can show that the driver 



on the right side had ample opportunity to prevent 



the accident ('-/). It need hardly be added that in 



every case in which a servant is acting within the 



scope of his employment and drives negligently the 



master is liable, and that the same rules for driving 



and riding apply to servants as well as to masters. 



(:) 5 Esp. 12. [a) Chaplhi v. Haucs, 3 C. & P. 5.54. 



K 2 



