Principle of the Law of Torts (Paperback)

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1891 edition. Excerpt: ...conduct. II.--If a person is harmed by the negligence of another, and he, by his own conduct, contributed to bring about the harm, and if he was able to avoid the consequences of the negligence of the other person, but did not avoid them, he is still entitled to redress, if the other person was able to avoid the effects of the conduct of the person harmed, but did not avoid them. (Radley v. London Sf N. W. Ry. Co., L. R. 1 Ap. Ca, 754; 46 L. J. Exch. 573.) III.--If a person is harmed by the negligence of another, and he has by his own conduct contributed to bring about the harm, if he was able to avoid the consequences of the conduct of the other person, but did not do so, and the other person was not able to avoid the effects of the conduct of the person harmed, the person harmed is not entitled to redress. Conduct on the part of the person harmed, contributing to the resulting harm, is termed contributory negligence. 124. The defence of contributory negligence does not extend, so far as the gain is 'concerned, to cases in which the person harming the other has directly gained by the other's loss. The words "able to avoid" mean capable by the use of reasonable diligence of avoiding. 125. Contributory negligence is not imputable to persons deprived permanently, or in the particular matter, of the power of self-control. Whether a child is old enough to be responsible for want of care on its part, is a question of fact to be determined on the circumstances of the case. 126. A person is regarded as being able to do, or abstain from doing, a thing which he is bound to do or abstain from doing, when, but for the effects of his own voluntary conduct, he would be able to do it or abstain from doing it. 127....