NEGLIGENT DRIVING. 319 



But it was held tliat the relationship of master and servant 

 had been established between the defendant and P., so as 

 to render the defendant liable for an injury occasioned to 

 the plaintiff, whilst riding on the public road, by reason 

 of the negligent manner in which P. had left the soil of 

 the road over the drain, because P. was not a person exer- 

 cising the independent business of making and repairing 

 drains, but only a labourer chosen by the defendant in 

 preference to any other person (r). 



But in a case in which the defendants were employed by Stones left 

 A. to pave a district, and contracted with B. to pave one J^yaSub- 

 of the Streets, and B.'s workmen, in the course of paving °^ ^^^ °^* 

 the Street, left some stones at night in such a position as 

 to constitute a public nuisance, and the plaintiff was in- 

 jured by falling over these stones ; it was held that, as no 

 personal interference of the defendants with, or sanction of, 

 the work of laying down the stones was proved, the de- 

 fendants were not liable (■>>•). 



When a Surveyor of Highways has been ordered by a Statutory 

 Vestry to do certain works on a Highway, and during the ^}^^^^; » 

 periormance of tliose works an accident occurs m conse- Highways, 

 quence of the road being left in a dangerous condition, the 

 Surveyor is guilty of neglect of a statutory duty, under 

 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 50, s. 56, and will be liable in an action 

 for damage, notwithstanding that he has contracted with a 

 third party for supplying the necessary labour, and has not 

 personally interfered with the work (/) . 



And where an action on the Case for Negligence was Performance 

 brought against A. by B., a Car proprietor, for damage of an ordinary 

 occasioned to a vehicle of the latter, in consequence of a ^x\tj. 

 heap of rubbish having been left in a Street, near the 

 dwelling-house of A., by a man employed by him to clear 

 out his ashpit, and the Jury found the man had contracted 

 with A. not only to remove the rubbish to the Street, but 

 to carry it away altogether; it was held by the Irish Court 

 of Queen's Bench, that the subject-matter of the contract 



(r) Sadler v. Hcnhck, 24 L. J., see Wlhon v. Mem/, L. E.., 1 H. 



Q. B. 138 ; Blake v. Thirst, 2 H. & L. 326, 341 ; and Roscoe's N. P. 



C. 20 ; Butler \. Sunter, 7 H. & N. 14th ed. 689. 



826. {t) Taylor v. Greenhalgh, 24 W. 



(s) Overton Y. Freeman, 21 L. J., R. 311 — C. A. ; reversing L. E., 



C. P. 52 ; Gray v. Tullen, 32 L. J., 9 Q. B. 487 ; 43 L. J., Q. B. 168 ; 



Q. B. 169 ; this latter case was re- 31 L. T., N. S. 184 ; 23 W. R. 4 ; 



versed in the Exchequer Chamber, and see Pendleburij v. Greenliahjh, 



34 L. J., Q. B. 265; but the L. R., 1 Q. B. D. 36; 45 L. J., 



reasoning on which the decision Q. B. 3; 33L.T., N. S. 372; 24 "W. 



was founded has been disapi^roved ; R. 98 — C. A. 



