iJOO NEGLIGENCE IN THE USE OF HORSES, ETC. 



of the other carriage, which directly caused the injury; and 

 that this was in accordance with the opinion expressed by 

 the Court of Exchequer in Bridge v. The Grand Junction 

 Railway Company (c). The soundness of this doctrine was, 

 however, doubted from the first in this country (d), and sub- 

 sequently in Scotland (e) and America (/), and the former 

 case has now been finally overruled {g). The direction to 

 the jury in an action by a passenger on an omnibus against 

 the owner of another vehicle for compensation for damages 

 sustained by collision should therefore be, " was there negli- 

 gence on the part of the driver of the other vehicle which 

 caused the accident ? if so it is no answer to say that there 

 was also negligence on the part of the omnibus driver," 

 the plaintiff in such case not being disentitled to recover 

 by reason of the negligence of the driver of the omnibus on 

 which he was a passenger {h). 

 Altogether an Where the injury arises altogether from accident the 

 accident. defendant is not liable [i). Thus, where an action of 



trespass was brought for injury done to a horse by a pony 

 and chaise running against it, the plaintiff called witnesses 

 who said they saw the pony and chaise standing half an 

 hour in the street without any person to take care of them, 

 and also they afterwards saw the pony run away with the 

 chaise and run against the plaintiff's horse ; but they did 

 not know the cause of the pony's starting. It was sworn 

 on the part of the defendant, that his wife was holding the 

 pony by the bridle, when a Punch and Judy show coming 

 by frightened the pony, which ran away, and almost pulled 

 down the defendant's wife while she tried to hold it in, and 

 she was obliged at length to let go the rein. Lord Den- 

 man, C.J., in summing up, said to the jury, " If the facts 

 are true as suggested for the defence, I very much think 

 you would be disposed to consider this as an inevitable 

 accident, one which the defendant could not prevent." 



(c) Bridget. The Grand Junction Supr. Ct. U.S. 360. 



Bail. Co.,ZU.&W.1ii. (g) Mills v. Armstrong (The 



(d) 1 Sm. L. C. 3rd ed. by "WiUis Bernina), 13App. Cas. 1; 57 L. J., 

 and Keating, at p. 132 a., 9th ed. P. D. & A. 65 ; 58 L. T., N. S. 

 p. 323. In this doubt Parke, B., 423; 36 W. R. 870 ; 52 J. P. 212. 

 seems to have concurred. See The (A) Matthews v. London Street 

 Sernina, 12 P. D. at p. 71— per Traimvai/s Co., 68 L. J., Q. B. 12; 

 Lord Esher, M.E. See also The 60 L. T., N. S. 47 ; 52 J. P. 774. 

 Milan, Lush. 388. See also Fike v. London General 



(e) Adams v. Glasgow and South Omnibus Co., 8 Times L. E. 164. 

 Western Hail. Co., 2 Court Sess. Cas. («) Per Alderson, J., L'lucliwell ^. 

 4th ser. 216. Wilson, 5 C. & P. 375. 



(/) See Little v. Sachet, 9 Davis 



