EULE OF THE BOAD. 807 



But tte mere fact of a man driving on the wrong side of 

 the road is no evidence of negligent driving in an action 

 brought against him for running over a person, who was 

 crossing a road on foot (/). 



If a person driving on the wrong side of the road in the Driying on 

 dark accidentally injures another carriage or person, he is g^e^ til 

 answerable for it ((/). dark. 



If a person driving a gig on his proper side sees a gig Seeing a per- 

 coming down on the wrong side of the road, he must not son coming on 

 let himself be run down, but if he have time and room, gj]jg^°°^ 

 must get out of the way ; for if he does not, he cannot 

 bring an action and recover damages {h). 



And where an action was brought for negligently Does not jus- 

 driving against the plaintiff's horse, and it appeared that f^7^'^^'^^°'^ 

 the defendant's chaise came out of another road, and in 

 crossing over to its right side broke the leg of the plain- 

 tifPs horse, which was then on the wrong side of the 

 road. Lord EUenborough held that the circumstance of 

 the person being on the wrong side of the road was not 

 sufficient to discharge the defendant ; for though a person 

 might be on his wrong side of the road, if the road was of 

 sufficient breadth, so that there was full and ample room 

 for the party to pass, he was of opinion that he was bound 

 to take that course which would carry him clear of the 

 person who was on his wrong side ; and that if an injury 

 happened by running against such a person he would be 

 answerable. A person being on his wrong side of the road 

 could not justify another in wantonly doing an injury 

 which might be avoided. The question, therefore, to be 

 left to the jury was, whether there was such room, that, 

 though the plaintiff's servant was on his wrong side of the 

 road, there was sufficient room for the defendant's carriage 

 to pass between the plaintiff's horse' and the other side of 

 the road («). 



And in another similar case it was held by the Court of Eule of the 

 King's Bench, that whatever might be the law of the road, ^^^^^^^ '"' 

 it was not to be considered as inflexible and imperatively 

 governing cases where negligence was the question. In the 

 crowded streets of the metropolis, situations and circum- 



(/) Lloydy. Ogleby, 5 C. B., N. S. v. Bray, 3 East, 593. 



667. (A) Per Patteson, J.,iJ(!(!(?v. r«te, 



[g) See Eandayside y . Wilson, 3 Newcastle Spr. Ass. 1846; and see 



C. & P. 530 ; Alexander v. Laidley, Case of the Commerce, 3 Eob. Adm. 



ante, p. 306 ; JSlvin v. Chapman, Cas. 287. 



Cor. Lord Campbell, C.J., Norwich (i) Clay y. Wood, 5 Esp. 42; 8 



Spr. Assizes, 1853. See also Leame E. E. 827. 



X 2 



