Study manual

235 
[18] Chaplin V. Hawes. NISI PRIUS. 1828. 5 CARRINGTON & PAYNE 
554. 
Over-strict adherence to the "Rule of the Road" 
may be such Contributory Negligence. 
ACTION for an injury done to a horse which the plaintiff's 
servant was riding, by a cart which the servant of the defendant 
was driving. It appeared that the cart was advancing towards a 
turnpike having two gates; one for carriages going one way, and 
one for carriages going the opposite way. A chariot was 
stopping at the proper gate through which the cart should have 
gone, and this induced the driver to turn off to the other gate, 
when at the distance of about six yards. The plaintiff's 
servant was riding through that gate when the injury happened.
He was called as a witness; and, on his cross-examination, 
stated that he was three or four yards from the gate, when he 
saw the cart coming towards it, and could have pulled up, but 
did not, because he thought the driver would wait for him, as it 
was not the gate through which the cart had a right to pass. 
Wilde, Serjt., for the defendant. If the plaintiff's man was 
pertinaciously insisting on his right of coming through the 
gate, when he might have avoided the injury either by waiting or 
turning aside, the plaintiff cannot recover. His being on his 

---

236 
right side will not justify him in persisting so as to produce 
the injury when it might have been prevented by his pursuing a 
different line of conduct.
59
Spankie, Serjt., for the plaintiff. It is desirable to adhere 
to the law of the road, in order not to mislead the opposite 
party; and unless there is a clear mode of escape, the party who 
is on the proper side should not attempt any departure from the 
ordinary course, as he will make such an attempt at his own 
peril. 
BEST, C.J. If the plaintiff's servant had such clear space that 
he might easily have got away, then I think he would have been 
so much to blame as to prevent the plaintiff's recovering. 
But, on the sudden, a man maynot be sufficiently self-possessed 
to know in what way to decide; and in such a case I think the 
wrong-doer is the party who is to be answerable for the 
mischief, though it might have been prevented by the other