296 NEGLIGENCE IN THE USE OF HORSES, ETC. 



dant, who was in the occupation of certain premises abutting 

 on a private road consisting of a carriage and footway over 

 which he had a right of way, which premises he used for 

 the purposes of athletic sports, had erected a barrier across 

 the road to prevent persons driving vehicles up to the fence 

 surrounding his premises and overlooking the sports. In 

 the middle of this barrier was a gap, which was usually 

 open for the passage of vehicles, but which, when the sports 

 were going on, was closed by means of a pole let down 

 across it. It was admitted that the defendant had no legal 

 right to erect this barrier. Some person, without the de- 

 fendant's authority, removed a part of the barrier armed 

 with spikes, commonly called chevaux-de-frise, from the car- 

 riage-way where the defendant had placed it, and put it in 

 an upright position across the footpath. The plaintiff, on a 

 dark night, was lawfully passing along the road on his way 

 from one of the houses to which it led. He felt his way 

 through the opening in the middle of the barrier, and 

 getting on the footpath was proceeding along it when his 

 eye came in contact with one of the spikes of the chevaux- 

 de-frise and was injured. It was not suggested that the 

 plaintiff was guilty of any negligence contributing to the 

 accident, and the jury found that the use of the chevaux- 

 de-frise in the road was dangerous to the safety of the per- 

 sons using it. It was held, that the defendant, having 

 unlawfully placed a dangerous instrument in the road, was 

 liable in respect of injuries occasioned by it to the plaintiff, 

 who was lawfully using the road, notwithstanding the fact 

 that the immediate cause of the accident was the inter- 

 vening act of a third party in removing the dangerous 

 instrument from the carriage-way {h). 

 Inability of Although where a contractor does what he contracts to 



do, the act oi the employed is the act of the employer ; yet 

 where the act to be done is lawful, the contractor is liable 

 for anything done negligently, or beyond his contract («')• 

 But a contractor lawfully employed to construct a sewer 

 under a road, is not liable for injury caused to an in- 

 dividual, through a hole having formed in the roadway 

 from the natural subsidence of the ground, the work having 

 been properly completed by the defendant {k). 



(h) Clark v. Chamiers, 3 Q. B. D. L. J., Q. B. 169. 



.327; 47L. J.,Q. B.427; 38 L. T., (/.) Hyaiiis v. Weister, L. E., 2 



N. S. 454. Q. B. 264; L. E., 4 Q. B. 138— 



(i) Ellis V. Sheffield Gas Co., 23 Ex. Ch. 

 L. J., Q,. B. 42 ; Gray v. Fallen, 32 



contractor. 



