254 



LIVERY-STABLE KEEPERS, AGISTERS, ETC. 



A Job- 

 master's 

 Asyreement. 



Where the 

 Hirer is liable 

 for damaM. 



Hirer liable 

 through his 

 own conduct. 



Hirer liable 

 where he 

 might have 

 controlled his 

 Servant. 



wliicli the fact at once answers. We have fully considered 

 the judgments on both sides in Laugher v. Pointer {in), and 

 think that the weight of authority and legal principle is in 

 favour of the view taken by Lord Tenterden (w) and 

 Mr. Justice Littledale." 



A person Jobbing a Carriage by the year under a 

 written agreement, by which the owner binds himself 

 " to keep the same in perfect repair without any fiu-ther 

 charges whatever," is not liable for repairs made necessary 

 by accident. And in a case where the owner had so bound 

 himself, Lord Denman said, " Looking at the terms of the 

 agreement, it seems to me that the only case in which the 

 defendant could be subjected to the expense of repairs is 

 the case of damage happening through the ^cilful default of 

 the defendant. With regard to the evidence of the usage 

 of the trade, the language of the agreement between the 

 parties being clear and unequivocal, evidence as to the 

 general usage of the trade cannot be of any avail" (o). 



The Hirer of a Horse or Carriage is liable for damage 

 occasioned by the negligence of himself or his servant ; 

 and where two persons hire a Carriage, they are both 

 answerable for any damage occasioned by the negligent 

 driving of one of them ; but if it be hu-ed by one only, the 

 other, who is a m.ere passenger, is not liable [p). 



It is undoubtedly true that there may be special circum- 

 stances which may render the Hirer of Job Horses and 

 Servants responsible for the neglect of a Servant, though 

 not liable by virtue of the general relation of master and 

 servant. Thus, he may become so by his own conduct, as 

 by taking the actual management of the Horses, or order- 

 ing the Servant to drive in a particular manner which 

 occasions the damage complained of {q). 



When a Master and Servant are together in a Carriage, 

 and an injmy ensues, the Master, from his mere presence, 

 is a co-trespasser, if the act of the Servant amount to a 

 trespass (r). And on this principle w^here a Carriage and 

 Horses are hired, and the postboys are servants of the 

 owner ; if the Mirer be sitting outside, and have a view of 

 their proceedings, and do not interfere to prevent their 



(;k) Laugher v. Foinier, 5 B. & C. 

 547. 



(w) Then Chief Justice Abbott. 



(o) Reading v. Mcnhain, 1 M. & 

 Eob. 234. 



(p) Davy V. Chamherlayne, 4 Esp. 

 229. 



{q) Per Parke, B., Quarman v. 

 Burnett, 6 M. & W. 499. 



()•) Chandler v. Broughton, 1 Cr. 

 & M. 229. 



