Study manual

party's acting differently. 
Verdict for the plaintiff - £31.10s. 
[EDITOR'S NOTE. The final sentence of Best, C.J., embodies the 
principle of the "Agony of the Moment"; now established by The 
59
. And, 
a fortiori, "where the road is sufficiently broad, even though a carriage be on its
wrong side, yet, if there is sufficient room on the other side for 
other carriages, they are not justified in crossing the way [from their wrong side] in order to
assert the right of the road. That is going into danger voluntarily." (Per Lord Kenyon, C.J.; 2 
Espinasse 685). 

---

237 
Bywell Castle (L.R. 4 P.D. 219) where Brett, L.J., said "Where 
one ship by her wrongful act suddenly puts another ship into a 
position of difficulty ... we cannot expect the same amount of 
skill as we should under other circumstances". The rule, of 
course, will not apply if the first ship did not act wrongly. 

---

238 
[19] Boss v Litton NISI PRIUS. 1832. 5 CARRINGTON & PAYNE 407. 
To walk in the carriage-road does not constitute 
such Contributory Negligence. 
TRESPASS for injuring the plaintiff, by driving a cart against 
him. Plea - Not guilty. 
It appeared that the plaintiff was walking in the carriage way 
in the neighbourhood of Islington, about ten o'clock in the 
evening, when the defendant, who was driving a taxed cart, 
turned out from behind a post chaise and drove against the 
plaintiff, and knocked him down. A policeman, who was called as 
a witness, stated that he never walked upon the foot-path, it 
was in so bad a state. 
Comyn, for the plaintiff, called another witness, and was 
questioning him as to the state of the foot-path, when - 
DENMAN, C.J., observed - I do not think that any more evidence 
need be given on that subject. The policeman has proved the 
state of the path. A man has a right to walk in the road if he 
pleases. It is a way for foot-passengers as well as carriages. 
But he had better not, especially at night, when carriages are 
passing along. 

---

239 
Thesiger addressed the jury, and contended that the plaintiff 
ought to have used the foot-path, so that he might have avoided 
any carriage passing; and that, if he had done so, the injury 
would not have been sustained. 
Witnesses were called to shew that the plaintiff, previous to 
the injury, had a paralytic stroke. 
DENMAN, C.J., in summing up, said - That all persons, 
paralytic
60
as well as others, had a right to walk in the road, 
and were entitled to the exercise of reasonable care on the part 
of persons driving carriages along it. 
60
. 
[EDITOR'S NOTE. "A measure of care appropriate to the inability or disability of those
who are immature or feeble, in mind or body, is due from those who ought to anticipate the presence
of such persons within the scope of their own operations"; (per Lord Sumner, L.R. [1922] 1 A.C. at p. 
67).] 

---