284 



NEGLIGENCE IN THE USE OF HOESES, ETC. 



Negligence in 

 the care of 

 ficious horses, 

 &c. 



Where ano- 

 ther person 

 strikes a 

 horse. 



Damages 

 recovered in 

 tre 



Driring furi- 

 ously round 



Mail cart 

 rapidly enter- 

 ing Post Office 

 Yard. 



recover damages for an injury to the plaintiff, and to her 

 clothes, from being upset by the defendant, when driven 

 by him, it appeared that the plaintiff at the defendant's 

 request took a drive with him in his cart, and that the 

 defendant upset the cart, by reason of which a can of gas- 

 tar, which was in the cart,, was spilt over her clothes, and 

 her ankle was injured. Mr. Justice Byles told the jury 

 that the defendant was not hound to bring the same skill 

 and care as a driver of a public vehicle, to the driving of 

 his cart, in which he allowed the plaintiff to accompany 

 him, but he was bound to drive with reasonable care and 

 skill, and that the question for them was whether the 

 accident arose from the defendant's culpable negligence or 

 not. 



An action lies for neglect in taking care of vicious 

 horses, cattle, dogs, &c. As if a man ride an unruly 

 horse in Lincoln's Inn Fields (or other public place of 

 resort) to tame him, and he break loose and strike a 

 person {d). 



But where damage is done in consequence of a person 

 striking a horse on which another rides, the striker is the 

 trespasser and the rider is not (e) . 



A man and his wife brought an action of trespass for 

 a battery, and declared that the defendant struck the horse 

 whereon the wife rode, so that the horse ran away with 

 her, whereby she was thrown down, and another horse ran 

 over her, whereby she lost the use of two of her fingers. 

 The jury found for the plaintiffs and gave them 48/. 

 damages (/). 



If a man drive furiously round a corner and injure a 

 person on the further side, he is liable to an action for his 

 neghgence {g). 



One of the mail carts, entering the General Post Office 

 Yard at the rate of five or six miles an hour, knocked 

 down and seriously injured the plaintiff, a widow. On an 

 action being brought the defence was, that the accident 

 was occasioned by the plaintiff's own awkwardness, in not 

 attending to the driver's warning. Lord Campbell told 

 the jury, that the real question was whether that was a 



{<?) See Com. Dig. Action upon 

 the Case for Negligence, A. 5 ; and 

 Ferocious and Vicious Animals, post, 

 Part II., Chap. II. See a\s,o Michael 

 V. Alestree, 2 Lev. 173. 



(e) Gibson v. Tepper, 2 Salk. 637. 



(/) Dodwell V. Burford, 1 Mod. 

 24. 



(g) See Mayor of Colchester' v. 

 Srooke, 7 Q. B. 359. 



