288 



NEGLIGENCE IN THE USE OF HORSES, ETC. 



thrown from 

 an omnibus. 



Horse and 

 cart left 

 standing in 

 the street. 



has contributed to the accident by her own neglect, she 

 cannot recover in this action. I will put this case. If a 

 person in Oxford Street sees an omnibus coming, however 

 furiously, and he will be headstrong enough to try to cross 

 the street, and is run over, he cannot recover in an action 

 against the proprietors of the omnibus, as no one has a 

 right of action if he meets with an accident which by 

 ordinary care he might have avoided. The cabriolet, it is 

 said, was coming at the rate of nine or ten miles an hour, 

 which was a most improper pace at such an hour and in 

 such a place. Even a much less pace would be too fast at 

 that time of the evening in such a place as High Street, 

 Aldgate. If the plaintiff took reasonable and proper care, 

 and it was on account of the extraordinary speed of the 

 cabriolet that she could not save herself, and thus met with 

 the accident, she is entitled to your verdict ; but if she, by 

 her own negligence and want of care, contributed to the 

 accident, she cannot recover in this action, even though 

 you should think the driver of the cabriolet was driving 

 too fast, and was therefore guilty of negligence as well as 

 the plaintiff. If, however, the plaintiff took reasonable 

 and proper care, and it was the negligence of the driver 

 which caused the accident, you ought to find a verdict for 

 the plaintiff" (.s). 



So, also, where it appeared that the plaintiff was a 

 passenger on the top of an omnibus, which was struck 

 by the defendant's omnibus, and the consequence was 

 that the omnibus on which the plaintiff sat, continuing its 

 course, ran against some obstacle, and the plaintiff was 

 thrown off with considerable violence, it was held by the 

 Court of Exchequer that the defendant was liable (t). 



If a horse and cart are left standing in the street, 

 without any person to watch them, the owner is liable for 

 any damage done by them, though it be occasioned by 

 the act of a passer-by, in striking the horse. Thus, where 

 damage had been done under such circumstances, Chief 

 Justice Tindal said, " If a man chooses to leave a cart 

 standing in the street, he must take the risk of any mis- 

 chief that may be done " («). And in like manner a 

 master is liable if his cart be so left by his servant (x). 



(s) Woolfi. Beard, 8 C. & P. 373. 

 ((■) liifjby V. Seicitt, 5 Ex. 242. 

 (m) IlUdffe V. Goodtmii, 5 C. & P. 

 193. 



{x) Lynch t. Nurdin 1 Q,. B. 33. 



The correctness of this decision has, 

 however, been doubted. See Mann 

 T. irard, 8 Times L. E. 699 — per 

 Lord Esher, M.E. See also Zygo t. 

 NcichoU, 9 Ex. 302. 



