Odger's English Common Law

498 NEGLIGENCE.
Thus, where the plaintiff turned his donkey out in the public highway
with its forefeet fettered and the defendant, driving downhill at " a smartish
pace," ran over and killed it, it was held that the plaintiff could recover
damages for his loss, despite his illegal act in turning the donkey out in
the highway, because the jury found that the driver could by the exercise
of ordinary care have avoided the donkey altogether. 1
The same principles were applied in Butterfield v. Forrester, 2 where the
plaintiff recklessly rode against a pole, which the defendant had wrongfully
placed across a portion of the highway.
" Every person who does a -wrong is at least responsible
for all the mischievous consequences that may reasonably be
expected to result under ordinary circumstances from such
misconduct
" 3
; and the question whether or not the plaintiff
contributed to the mischief that happened by his want of
ordinary caution is necessarily one of degree which must be
answered by reference to the facts adduced in evidence.
Thus, where the plaintiff voluntarily incurred danger so great that no
sensible man would have incurred it, it was held that he could not sue for
compensation for injuries sustained. 4 If the Jplaintiff voluntarily places
himself in a position relatively to the defendant which he has no lawful
title to occupy or if, being cognisant of daDger^he voluntarily exposes him-
self to it, he may be estopped by such conduct from insisting that the defen-
dant's negligence had produced danger tojjhimself. 6
i Daviesr. Mann (1842), 10 M. & W. 546.
2
(18U9). ]1 Bast, 60.
s Per Pollock, C. B., in Rigby v. Hewitt (1850), 6 Exch. at p. 243.
* Clayards v. Uethick (1848), 12 Q. B. 439, 446 ; and see the remarks of Bramwell,
L. J., on this case in Lax v. Corporation of Darlington (1879), 5 Ex. D. at
p. 85.
6 As to the defence of common employment, see Master and Servant, post, pp. 867,
668.