334 



NEGLIGENCE IN THE USE OF HORSES, ETC. 



Unless done 

 out of the 

 course of the 

 Servant's em- 

 ployment. 



Liability of 

 Cab Pro- 

 prietor. 



liis Master's business for tlie benefit of bis Master, and not 

 for the benefit of himself, the Master is liable, although 

 the act may in one sense be wilful on the part of the 

 Servant. It is said that what was done was contrary to 

 the Master's instructions ; but that might be said in ninety- 

 nine out of a hundred cases in which actions are brought 

 for reckless diiving. It is also said that the act was illegal. 

 So, in almost every action for negligent driving, an illegal 

 act is imputed to the Servant. If we were to hold this 

 direction wrong, in almost every case a driver would come 

 forward, and exaggerate his own misconduct, so that the 

 Master would be absolved. Looking at what is a reason- 

 able direction, as well as at what has been already decided, 

 I think tliis summing-up perfectly correct." 



And Mr. Justice Blackburn said, with reference to the 

 act being done by the defendant when " in the coiu'se of 

 his service and emplojmient," it is " not universally true 

 that every act done for the interest of the Master is done 

 in the course of the emplojanent. A footman might think 

 it for the interest of his Master to drive the coach, but no 

 one could say that it was within the scope of the footman's 

 employment, and that the Master Avould be liable for 

 damage resulting from the wilful act of the footman in 

 taking charge of the Horses. But, in this case, I think 

 the direction given to the Jiuy was a sufficient guide to 

 enable them to say whether the particular act was done in 

 the course of the employment. The learned Judge goes 

 on to say, that the instructions given to the defendants' 

 Servants were immaterial if he did not pursue them (upon 

 which all are agreed) ; and at the end of his direction he 

 l")oints out that, if the Jiuy were of opinion ' that the true 

 character of the act of the defendants' Servant was, that 

 it was an act of his own and in order to effect a pm-pose 

 of his own, the defendants were not responsible.' That 

 meets the case which I have already alluded to. If the 

 Jury should come to the conclusion that he did the act, 

 not to further his Master's interest nor in the course of his 

 emplopnent, but from private spite, and with the object of 

 injuring his enemy, the defendants were not responsible. 

 That removes all objection, and meets the suggestion that 

 the Jury may have been misled by the previous part of the 

 summing-up." 



Generally, the Registered Proprietor and the Licensed 

 Driver of a cab stand in the relation of a Master and Ser- 

 vant quoad the public, and therefore the Proprietor is liable 



