332 



NEGLIGENCE IN THE USE OF HORSES, ETC. 



Liability uow 

 held to be 

 more exten- 

 sive. 



Zimjms v. The 

 General Om- 

 nibus C'om- 

 paiii/. 



Acts done 

 ■within em- 

 ployment and 

 for Master's 

 interest. 



Servant liad the autliority of bis Master to do the par- 

 ticular act, namely, to drive along the highway, which is 

 perfectly lawful in itself, it was held by Mr. Justice 

 Patteson that the Master was chargeable, because the act 

 so authorized by him had been done negligently ; but 

 that, if the Servant drove wilfully against another, the 

 Master was not chargeable for the injury done (.r). 



But this definition is not an exhaustive one, for the 

 liability of the Master extends beyond the lawful acts of 

 his Servant. And the test of his liability is, not whether 

 the acts of his Servant are illegal and wilful, or the con- 

 trary, but whether they are within the scope of the 

 Servant's employment and in the execution of the service 

 for which he is engaged {>/). 



In the case of LiiupKS v. T//e Genevol Omnibus Com- 

 2ianij (i/), decided in the Exchequer Chamber, which fixed 

 and defined the law on this subject, the driver of the 

 defendant's Omnibus drove it across the road in front of 

 a rival Omnibus belonging to the plaintiff, which was 

 thereby overturned. The driver said, that he pulled 

 across the plaintiff's Omnibus, to prevent it passing him. 

 The defendants had given printed instructions to their 

 driver not to obstruct any Omnibus. 



Mr. Baron Martin, before whom the case was tried, 

 directed the Jury that, "When the relation of Master 

 and Servant existed, the Master was responsible for the 

 reckless and improper conduct of his Servant in the 

 course of the service ; that if the Jury believed that the 

 defendant's driver, being dissatisfied and irritated with 

 the plaintiff's driver, acted recklessly, wantonly, and 

 improperly, but in the course of the service and employ- 

 ment, and doing that which he believed to be for the in- 

 terest of the defendants, then they were responsible ; that 

 if the act of the defendants' driver, although a reckless 

 driving on his part, was nevertheless an act done by him 

 in the course of his service, and to do that which he thought 

 best to suit the interest of his employers, and so to inter- 

 fere with the trade and business of the other Omnibus, the 

 defendants were responsible ; that the instructions given to 

 the defendants' driver by them were immaterial if he did 

 not pursue them ; but that, if the act of the defendants' 

 Servant was an act of his own, and in order to effect a pur- 



[r) Lyons v. Martin, 8 A. & E. 

 515; S. C. SNev. &P. 509; and see 

 M'Mauus V. Cricket, 1 East, 106. 



(//) Lhi/pus V. T/w General Omni- 

 bus Co., 1 H. & C. 526. 



