310 



NEGLIGENCE IN THE USE OF HORSES, ETC. 



Going OTer a 

 crossing. 



Alighting 

 from a tram- 



Nuisance on 

 public high- 

 way. 



Horse and 

 carriage before 

 tradesman's 

 door. 



the proper side of the road does not apply with respect to 

 foot passengers; and as regards the foot passengers, the 

 carriages may go on whichever side of the road they 

 please " (s). 



It is the duty of a person who is driving over a cross- 

 ing for foot passengers at the entrance of a street, to drive 

 slowly, cautiously, and carefully ; hut it is also the duty of 

 a foot passenger to use due care and caution in going upon 

 such crossing, so as not to get among the carriages, and so 

 receive injury {t). 



A person dismounting from a tramcar is just as much 

 bound to look after his own safety as if he were crossing 

 from one side of the street to the other. It is just as much 

 a carriage way as the whole street, and while vehicles are 

 bound to go at a steady pace, and not to be driven furiously, 

 foot passengers crossing carriage ways are bound to look 

 after their own safety, and not to run obvious and un- 

 necessary risk («(). 



If there be a nuisance in a public highway, a private in- 

 dividual cannot of his own authority abate it, unless it does 

 him a special injury, and he can only interfere with it so 

 far as is necessary to exercise his right of passing along 

 the highway ; and he cannot justify doing any damage 

 to the property of the person who has improperly placed 

 the nuisance in the highway, if, avoiding it, he might have 

 passed on with reasonable convenience {x). 



A tradesman may remove a horse and cart or carriage 

 from before his door, if it impedes his business. Thus if 

 a hackney coach stands before a shopkeeper's door, and 

 hinders customers, he may lawfully take hold of the horses 

 and lead them away, and is not bound to take his remedy 

 for damages (y). 



(s) Cotteril V. Tm-ley, 8 C. & P. 

 693. See also Lloyd v. Oglehy, 5 

 C. B., N. S. 667. 



(<) See per Pollock, C.B., mi- 

 limns V. liichards^ 3 C. & K. 82. 

 See also Cotton t. Wood, 8 C. B., N. S. 

 568, cited ante, pp. 303, 304. 



{«) Jardine v. ^tonejield Laundry 

 Co., 14 Eettie, 839; Ramsay v. 

 Thompson, 9 Eettie, 140. 



(x) See Judgment of Court of 

 Queen's Bench, Dimes v. Petley, 15 

 Q. B. 288 ; Sridge v. Grand Junc- 



tion Rail. Co., 3 M. & "W. 244 ; 

 Davies v. 3Iann, 10 M. & W. 546 ; 

 May or of Colchester w . Brooke, 7 Q,. B. 

 339. 



(y) Slater y. Swann, 2 Str. 872. 

 But see the remarks of Jessel, M.R., 

 in Original Sartkpool Coll. Co. T. 

 Gibh, 5 Ch. D. at pp. 721, 722, from 

 which it would appear that the 

 tradesman could only act in the 

 manner above indicated upon the as- 

 sumption that the obstruction was 

 unreasonable. 



