Can a plaintiff appeal on the finding that he was guilty of contributory negligence, only because he was a councillor on the date of the accident?

This brings us to the plaintiff’s appeal on the jury’s finding that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence, due “only to the fact that he was a councillor on the date of the fire.” It seems to me that in making this finding the jury was really trying to show that it was taking due cognizance in its answer of a conclusion of law based upon the direction made by the trial Judge, that the municipality could not by its councillors escape the duty of protecting its citizens from dangerous things simply by delegating it to some one else. Hence that they sought to make it clear that, if his official position as councillor made him really responsible for the accident, they had nothing whatever to say. But this is a matter of law, with which the jury in its proper capacity had no right to deal. For this reason I think that this finding may well be deemed to be ineffectual and of no consequence. The learned trial Judge indeed seeks to relate it to the fact that the plaintiff, as councillor, had concurred in the extinguishers being kept in the village poolroom, where they were open to interference from the frequenters and customers of that place. In my opinion, however, it disposes too much to error to try and undertake to relate the jury’s finding to any one thing to which they have not themselves in some way related it. It seems to me that the finding can only be properly construed in reference to all the facts possibly relevant thereto. But even if the finding be allowed to stand, I do not see how it can validly be held to preclude the plaintiff from his right to recover as a matter of law, since there is no lack of authority that what an officer of a corporation does in his corporate capacity cannot hurt him in his individual character. See Herman v. Tappenden (1801) 1 East. 555, 102 E.R. 214.