302 NEGLIGENCE IN THE USE OF HORSES, ETC. 



plaintiff in a case of this sort is not entitled to have his 

 case left to the jury, unless he gives some affirmative 

 evidence that there has been negligence on the part of the 

 defendant. The sort of negligence imputed here is either 

 that the defendant was unskilful in the management of the 

 horse, or imprudent in taking a vicious animal, or one with 

 whose propensities or temper he was not sufficiently 

 acquainted, into a populous neighbourhood. The evidence 

 is, that the defendant was seen riding a horse at a slow 

 pace, that the horse seemed restless and the defendant was 

 holding the reigns tightly, omitting nothing he could do to 

 avoid the accident ; but that the horse swerved from the 

 roadway on to the pavement, where the deceased was walk- 

 ing, and knocked him down, and injured him fatally. I 

 can see nothing in this e^ddence to show that the defendant 

 was unskilful as a rider or in the management of a 

 horse. There is nothing which satisfies my mind affirma- 

 tively that the defendant was not quite capable of riding so 

 as to justify him in being with his horse at the place in 

 question. It appears that the defendant had only bought 

 the horse the day before, and was for the first time trying 

 his new purchase, — using his horse in the way he intended 

 to use it. It is said that the defendant was not justified in 

 riding in that place a horse whose temper he was un- 

 acquainted with. But I am of opinion that a man is not to 

 be charged with want of caution because he buys a horse 

 without having had previous experience of him. There 

 must be horses without number ridden every day in London 

 of whom the riders know nothing. A variety of circum- 

 stances will make a horse restive. The mere fact of 

 restiveness is not even prima facie evidence of negli- 

 gence" (o). 

 Manzoni v. Where a horse drawing a brougham under the care of 



the defendant's coachman in a public street suddenly, and 

 without any explainable cause, bolted, and, notwithstanding 

 the utmost efforts of the driver to control him, swerved on 

 to the footway and injured the plaintiff, it was held that 

 there was no evidence of negligence to go to the jury : and 

 that the fact that the horse had cast a shoe shortly after he 

 bolted, and that the driver did not under the circumstances 

 in which he was placed call out or give any warning, did 

 not alter the case {p). 



(o) Hammack v. White, 11 C. B., D. 145 ; 40 L. J., C. P. 289; up- 

 N. S. 588. holding Hammack v. JFhite, ubi 



(p) Jlun-oni Y. Douglas, 6 Q. B. supra. 



Douf/las. 



