NEGLIGENT DRIVING. 303 



In all cases, therefore, where a horse runs away and Horse runuing 

 inflicts an injury, if the rider or driver have not acted in ''^'^y- 

 such a manner as would lead a jury to suppose that his 

 conduct must have contributed to the accident, he is not 

 answerable (q). 



But the rule that a person is not answerable for injury Qualiacation 

 resulting from circumstances over which he has no control °* '■'"^^' 

 admits of this qualification, namely, that if a person is 

 aware beforehand that the circumstances in which of his 

 own free will he is about to place himself, will put him in 

 a position over which he has no control, and in which he 

 will probably cause injury to others, he will then be 

 answerable for an injury so caused ; thus, if in the case 

 quoted above of Samma-ck v. White, the defendant had 

 been proved to have known beforehand that the horse was 

 vicious and unmanageable (r), he would have been held 

 responsible. 



"Where a passenger in an omnibus was injured by a 

 blow from one of the horses, which had kicked through the 

 front panel of the vehicle, and there was no evidence on 

 the part of the passenger that the horse was a kicker ; but 

 it was proved that the panel bore marks of other kicks, and 

 that no precaution had been taken by the use of a kicking 

 strap or otherwise against the possible consequences of a 

 horse striking out, and no explanation was offered on the 

 part of the owner of the omnibus ; it was held that there 

 was evidence of negligence proper to be submitted to a 

 jury (s). 



The proof of negligence must be affirmative. Therefore Proof of neg- 

 where there is a perfectly even balance of evidence there is ^^^"^^ ^^^ 

 no negligence. Thus, in the case of Cotton v. Wood (t), 

 the plaintiff's wife, on a dark night, and in a snowstorm, 

 proceeded slowly, accompanied by another female, to cross 

 a crowded thoroughfare, whilst the defendant's omnibus 

 was coming up on the right side of the road, and at a 

 moderate pace. There was abundant time for the women 

 to have got safely across, and they had got so far across 

 as to have passed in front of the omnibus, when they were 

 alarmed by the approach of another vehicle from the 



{q) See ante, p. 281 ; Hex v. Tim- Times L. E. 812. 

 miws, 7 C.& P. 500 ; ajid Bee Holmen (s) Siinson y. London General 



V. Mather, L. E., 10 Ex. 261 ; 44 Omnibus Co., L. E., 8 C. P. 390; 42 



L. J., Ex. 176 ; 33 L. T., N. S. 361. L. J., G. P. 112 ; 28 L. T., N. S. 



ir) See judg-ment of Willes, J., 560 ; 21 "W. R. 595. 

 Hammock v. White, 11 C. B., N. S. it) Cotton v. Wood, 8 C. B., N. S. 



697. See also Villiers v. Aveij, 3 568. 



