NEGLIGENT DKIVING. 299 



can recover. Thus, where the plaintiff, in crossing a road, 

 was knocked down and seriously injured by the defendant's 

 cart. Chief Justice Tindal told the jury that they must be 

 satisfied that the injury was attributable to the negligence 

 of the driver and to that alone, before they could find a 

 verdict for the plaintiff ; for if they thought that it was 

 occasioned in any degree by the improper conduct of the 

 plaintiff in crossing the road in an incautious and imprudent 

 manner, they must find their verdict for the defendant (•«). 

 And where an action was brought for an injury to the 

 plaintiff's chaise by the defendant's carriage, Mr. Justice 

 Alderson left it to the jury to say whether the injury was 

 occasioned by negligence on the part of the defendant's 

 servant, without any negligence on the part of the plaintiff 

 himself; for that if the plaintiff's negligence in any way 

 concurred in producing the injury, the defendant would be 

 entitled to the verdict {y). So, also, if a person sees 

 another carriage coming furiously on the wrong side of the 

 road, and does not get out of the way when he has the 

 opportunity, he cannot recover for any injury he may 

 sustain (z). 



In an action brought by an infant plaintiff against a Identification, 

 railway company for an injury from an accident, which was "* '^'^^^ '^i*'^ 

 caused by the joint negligence of the defendants and the charge of it. 

 grandmother of the child, who had charge of it, the child 

 being unable to take care of itself, it was held by the 

 Exchequer Chamber, afB.rming the judgment of the Court 

 Court of Queen's Bench, that the child could not maintain 

 an action against the company, as a complete identification 

 was constituted between the plaintiff and the party whose 

 negligence contributed to the damage (a). 



In the case of Thorogood v. Bryan (h), where a person Doctrine of 

 was run over and killed by an omnibus which was racing, of^asgenge" 

 and the negligence of the driver of the omnibus, in which with driver 

 the deceased was a passenger, was relied on as a defence to exploded. 

 the action brought by the widow of the deceased, it was 

 held that the deceased having trusted the party by selecting 

 the particular conveyance, he had so far identified himself 

 with the carriage in which he was travelling, that want of 

 care on the part of its driver was a defence for the driver 



(x) Sawldns V. Cooper, 8 C. & P. {a) Waite v. North-Eastern Rail. 



473. Co., E. B. & E. 719. 



(^) Fluekioell v. Wilson, Mart., 5 (A) Tlm-ogood v. Bryan, 8 C. B. 



C. & P. 375. 130. 



(z) See Reed v. Tate, post, p. 307. 



