to turn a corner safely, the servant guided them so that, without intending it, the horses knocked down and injured the plaintiff who was on the highway. The plaintiff sued for negligence. No negligence was disclosed on the part of the driver. It was held that in the absence of intention or negligence, the defendant was not liable. In this case, Branwell B made his famous dictum: "For the convenience of mankind in carrying on the affairs of life, people as they go along roads must expect, or put up with, such mischief as reasonable care on the part of others cannot avoid.” In Stanley v Powell (1891) 1 QB 86, the defendant was a member of a shooting party who were hunting game. The defendant fired his gun and a pellet hit a tree and bounced off into the eye of the beater who was employed to drive birds to the shooting party. The court held: that in the absence of intention or negligence, the defendant was not liable to the plaintiff for battery. In Fowler v Lanning (1959) 1 QB 426, the defendant shot the plaintiff with a gun. The plaintiff sued for personal injuries. The plaintiff did not allege that the shooting was intentional or negligent but simply averred that the defendant on a certain date and place shot him. The court held that the action must fail. An action for trespass to person does not lie if the trespass was neither intentional nor negligent. Therefore, where trespass is alleged, the onus lies on he plaintiff to prove either: Intention: or Negligence. Where the plaintiff fails to do either, the plaintiff’s statement of claim will be regarded as disclosing no cause of action, and it will be dismissed. See the following cases: In Benson v Sir Frederic Bart (1766) 97 ER 1130, the plaintiff was ordered to be beaten by the defendant noble