286 



NEGLIGENCE IN THE USE OF HOESES, ETC. 



Ey van left on 

 roadside. 



Harris v. 

 llobbs. 



By engine- 

 driver blow- 

 ing off steam 

 at a crossing. 



Blowing off 

 steam at a 

 station. 



had been suggested it would be more out of tbe way. The 

 jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff — damages 60^. {k). 



In Harris v. Mobhs (/) a house-van attached to a steam- 

 plough was left for the night on the grassy side of a high- 

 way by the defendant. The van and plough were four 

 or five feet from the metalled part of the way. 

 During the evening the plaintiff's testator drove his mare 

 in a cart along the metalled road. The mare was a kicker, 

 but he was unaware of her vice. Passing the van she 

 shied at it, kicked, and galloped, kicking for 140 yards, 

 then got her leg over the shaft, fell, and kicked her driver 

 as he rolled out of the cart. He afterwards died from the 

 kick so received. In an action under Lord Campbell's 

 Act (9 & 10 Vict. c. 93, s. 1), by his executors for wrong- 

 ful and negligent obstruction of the highway, the jury 

 found that the van was left where it stood unreasonably, 

 and neghgently, and caused some appreciable danger to 

 vehicles passing along the metalled parts of the road; 

 that the death was occasioned by the van standing where 

 it did, and by the inherent vice of the mare combined, and 

 that there was no contributory negligence. It was held on 

 these findings that the verdict and judgment must be for 

 the plaintifi's ; for the unauthorized, unreasonable, and 

 dangerous user of the highway by the defendant was the 

 proximate cause of the injury. 



So, too, where an engine-driver blew off steam at a 

 spot where a railway crossed a highway on a level, so as 

 to frighten horses waiting to cross the line, such crossing 

 being a place where there was considerable traffic, it was 

 held to be actionable negligence on the part of the com- 

 pany (in). 



But where, in an action against a railway company, it 

 appeared that the plaintiffs were leaving a station belong- 

 ing to the defendants in a carriage, when the horse was 

 frightened by the sight and sound of an engine at the 

 station blowing off steam, and the carriage was upset and 

 the plaintiffs injured ; and it did not appear that the engine 

 was defective, or that it was used in an improper manner, 

 or that the approach to the station was inconvenient ; but 

 the jury found that the defendants were guilty of neghgence 



[k) Lamhrt v. Sarrison, cor. Tal- 

 fourd, J., Guildhall (C. P.), Feb. 25, 

 1853. 



{I) 3 Ex. D. 268; 39 L. T., N. S. 

 164; 27 W. K. 164. See also 



Wilkins v. Day, 12 Q. B. D. 110; 

 49 L. T., N. S. 399. 



(m) Manchester Sail. Co. v. Ftil- 

 larton, 14 C. B., N. S. 64; 11 "W. E. 

 754. 



