HIRING HORSES. 



233 



liability if the hirer had selected the carriage after examin- 

 ing it with a view to ascertain its fitness, does not appear to 

 have been decided, but it is clear that ho would be so 

 relieved if the hirer had selected it, notwithstanding the 

 existence of patent defects. 



Even if a particular horse has been selected oat of the 

 owner's stables, it makes no difference, as it must be sup- 

 posed that all are fit for their work {x). 



But if a horse is hired for one purpose, and is used for 

 another, and the horse when thus used is injured, the hirer 

 is liable for the damage thus occasioned. Accordingly 

 where a horse was hired as a lady's riding horse, the hirer 

 was held to be liable for damage occasioned when trying 

 him in harness [y). 



In contracts reciprocally beneficial to both parties, such 

 as hiring, &c., such care is exacted, as every prudent man 

 commonly takes of his own goods ; and by consequence the 

 hirer is answerable for ordinary neglect (z). If therefore a 

 man so treat and manage his hired horse as any prudent man 

 would act towards his own horse, he is not answerable for 

 any damage the horse may receive (a). 



If a hired horse is injured owing to the negligence of the 

 hirer's servant, the hirer will be liable to make good the 

 damage to the owner. Thus where the coachman of 

 the hirer of a horse and carriage instead of taking them, 

 as was his duty, to the stable, drove for his own purposes in 

 another direction, and while he was thus engaged the horse 

 and carriage were injured, owing to his negligent driving ; 

 it was held that there had been a breach of the hirer's 

 contract as bailee, for which he was liable {b). 



Where the plaintiff declared that, at the defendant's 

 request, he delivered a mare to the defendant to be pru- 

 dently ridden, and the defendant injured her, it was held 

 that he might plead his infancy in bar, as the action was 

 founded on a contract (c). 



But where it is clear, from the statement of claim, the 

 whole of which must be looked at in order to see whether 

 the action is substantially founded in tort or in contract, 

 that the plaintiff claims damages for a tort ; and that in 



Where a par- 

 ticular horse 

 is selected. 



But a horse 

 should not 

 be used for a 

 purpose other 

 than that for 

 which it was 

 hired. 



What care is 

 required. 



Liability of 

 hirer for 

 negligence o£ 

 servant. 



Infancy good 

 defence to an 

 action on 

 contract. 



Secus where 

 action founded 

 in tort. 



ix) Cheiv v. Jones, 10 L. T. 231, 

 308. 



[y) Gapp Y. Giandonati, C. P., 

 X. P., Nov. 14, 1857, coram Cress- 

 well, J. 



(i) Jones on Bailments, 25. 



{a) Cooper v. Burton, 3 Camp., 

 6 n. ; 13 B,. E. 736. 



(A) Coupe Co. V. Maddick, [1891] 

 2Q. B. 413; 60 L. J., Q. B. 676. 



(r) Jennings v. Hundall, 8 D. & K. 

 335. 



