170 BOARD OF AGRICULTURE. 



shows a toucli of maliciousness in his act done in the prose- 

 sution of your business, and intentionally runs into another 

 team which somewhat obstructs his way while/ driving your 

 load, you may not screen yourself behind his unnecessary and 

 wilful violation of your orders (12 Allen, 49 ; 114 Mass. 518 ; 

 109 Mass. 154). Of course, in all these cases, you could 

 compe] the servant to repay you all the expenses he had thus 

 caused you by his misconduct (63 Me. 177 ; 43 Conn. 244). 

 On the other hand, to make you responsible for his careless- 

 ness, he must have been at the very time on your business. 

 If he borrows your horse and wagon, and goes off on pleas- 

 ure, or business of his own, and runs over somebody, you are 

 not responsible, merely because it was your horse and wagon 

 (26 Penn. St. 482) ; much less would the master be liable if 

 the servant took his team without his knowledge on pleasure 

 or business of his own (4 Daly, 338). 



How it would be if the fellow was on his own business and 

 yours too, is a nice question, which might puzzle even a 

 " Philadelphia lawyer." In one instance a farmer lent his 

 man his team to go to town for a holiday, and asked him to 

 stop at the butcher's on liis way home, and bring along a 

 piece of meat for next day's dinner. While fulfilling this 

 order, the man also took a little " fire-water," and soon after 

 ran over an old woman in the public highway ; but the mas- 

 ter was considered not responsible. This was, however, in 

 the courts of the Emerald Isle (9 Irish L. R. 557). 



One more distinction on this subject it may be well for 

 you to know; and that is, that, although an employer is re- 

 sponsible for any careless injury his men may do to third 

 persons, he is not responsible for such an injury to other 

 fellow-Avorkmen. If his man, therefore, b}^ the very same 

 act of negligence, injures a co-laborer and also a bystander, 

 the latter would have redress against the master, and the 

 other not ; for, by a species of rather artificial reasoning I 

 think, a man, when hiring out, is supposed in law to have 

 anticipated any direct injury from the carelessness of his 

 co-laborers, and taken the risk on himself (but not to his 

 wife, 112 Mass. 234), whatever his rate of wages. But, on 

 the other hand, he is not presumed to have contemplated 

 any negligence on the part of his employer ; and therefore 

 he has a remedy against the latter for his own personal care- 



