NEGLIGENT DRIVING. 



285 



proper pace to drive into the yard. And they gave a 

 verdict for the plaintiff, with 60/. damages {h). 



Independently of negligent driving, an action will also lie Negligence in 

 in respect of damage sustained in a collision resulting from li^'^°''ssing. 

 the improper harnessing of the defendant's horse. Where 

 the defendant was driving along a highway a sixteen hand 

 horse in a van which was much too small for it, in conse- 

 quence of which the horse's houghs rubbed against the 

 cross bar of the shafts ; and the horse, having been startled 

 by a slight collision with a cab, violently collided with an 

 omnibus which was standing at the kerb on its proper side, 

 producing damage ; and it was clear that no accident 

 would have happened to the omnibus if the defendant's 

 horse had not been too large for the van ; it was held that 

 the harnessing of the horse to such a van was the 

 negligence which materially and proximately led to the 

 accident («'). 



If damage is caused by a horse taking fright at some- Frightening 

 thing which is improperly placed in the public street, the ^ ^"^^^il'^ ^ 

 person so placing it is liable. Thus, in the following case, 

 the plaintiif, a carman, was proceeding with his master's 

 cart, heavily laden, along Angel Lane, Stratford, when the 

 horse took fright at a fire-basket, on which some asphalte 

 was boiling, started to one side, and, notwithstanding the 

 plaintiff's catching hold of the bridle, threw him down, so 

 that the wheel passed over his leg and produced a com- 

 pound fracture of the bone. He was taken to the London 

 Hospital, where the bone was set, but hospital gangrene 

 supervened, and he was for some days in danger of losing 

 his leg. He, however, gradually recovered, was discharged 

 after twelve weeks, and continued as an outpatient for a 

 long time. Eventually he was able to walk about with the 

 help of a stick, and earn 10s. a- week, but at the time of 

 the accident he was in the receipt of 11. a-week, on which 

 he supported himself and two young daughters. The 

 defendant had contracted to lay the floor of a room in the 

 Angel Inn with asphalte, which he caused to be boiled in 

 the lane, as the smell was too powerful for the house. He 

 had been warned of the danger of having the fire-basket 

 in the street, and had removed it to a difi'erent part of the 

 lane, but did not place it in the yard of the inn, where it 



(h) Smith V. M'Namara, cor. Lord (») BurMm v. 



CampbeU, C.J., Queen's Bench, 760— Fry, L.J. 

 N. v., May 12, 1853. 



Bile:ikdgi, 53 J. P. 



