30(5 



NEGLIGENCE IN THE USE OF HORSES, ETC. 



Evidence 

 identical with 

 that required 

 for man- 

 elaughter. 



by a barrel of flour falling upon him from an upper 

 window, it was held that the mere fact of the accident 

 without any proof of the circumstances under which it 

 occurred was evidence of negligence to go to the jury in 

 an action against the flour-dealer, the declaration alleging 

 that the plaintiff was injured by the negligence of the 

 defendant's servants. And Pollock, C.B., said, "There 

 are certain cases of which it may be said re,s ipsa loquitur, 

 and this seems to be one of them. The Courts have held 

 that from certain occurrences negligence may be presumed, 

 railway accidents, &c." (a). 



It may be taken as a rule that the same evidence is re- 

 quired to establish a case of negligence as would suffice to 

 convict a man of manslaughter {b). 



Rule of the Road. 



Customary The customary rules of driving are, first, that in meeting 



rules of each party should bear or keep to the left ; secondly, that 



driving. in passing, the foremost person bearing to the left, the other 



shall pass on the ofl'-side; thirdly, that in crossing, the 

 driver coming transverse, shall bear to the left-hand, so 

 as to be behind the other carriage (c). And these rules 

 are judicially recognised vnthout proof (d) . It is customary 

 for foot passengers to take the right-hand side. 



In the case of highways not regulated by special Acts, 

 the law of the road is a statutory enactment under 5 & 6 

 "Will. 4, c. 50, s. 78 ; and by section 85, sub-section (1) 

 of the Local Government Act, 1888, "bicycles, tricycles, 

 velocipedes, and other similar machines," are declared to be 

 carriages within the meaning of the Highway Acts. 

 Bight side of If there be no peculiar circumstances to the contrary, it 

 the road. is the duty of each party to keep the regular side of the 



road. However, a person riding or driving is not bound to 

 keep his side ; but if he does not, he must use more care, 

 and keep a better look-out, to avoid collision, than would 

 be necessary if he were on the proper part of the road (e). 



{a) Byme-j.Boadle, 33 L. J., Ex. 

 13. See also Seott v. London Doclc 

 Co., 13 W. E. 410, and Kearney ¥. 

 London, Brighton and South Coast 

 Rail. Co., L. R., 5 Q. B. 411 ; 

 affirmedinEx.Ch.,L.E.,6(i.B.759. 



(4) See judgments of WUliams, J., 

 and "Wilde, J., Sammaclc v. White, 



11 C. B.,N. S. 588. 



(c) 2 Steph. N. P. 984. 



(d) 1 Taylor on ETidence, 9th 

 ed. 6. 



(e) Alexander v. Laidley, Cor. 

 Alderson, B., Carlisle Spr. Assizes, 

 1847 ; and Pluelwell v. Wilson, 5 

 C. &P. 375. 



