336 



NEGLIGENCE IN THE USE OF HuRSES, ETC. 



Servant strik- 

 ing the Horse 

 of another. 



Servant strik- 

 ing passenger. 



Guard of 

 Omnibus 

 using imdue 

 violence to a 

 passenger. 



altlioiigli it should appear that his Servant was not driving 

 at tlie time of the accident, but had cutnided the reins to a 

 Stranger who was riding with him, and who was not in the 

 Master's service {c). 



If a Servant driving his Master's Carriage, in order to 

 effect some purpose of his own, icantonhj strike the Horse 

 of another person, and produce an accident, the Master 

 will not be liable. But if in order to perform his Blas- 

 ter's orders he strikes, but injudiciously, and in order to 

 extricate himself from a difficulty, that will be negligent 

 and careless conduct, for which the Master will he liable, 

 being an act done in pursuance of the Servant's employ- 

 ment. And where a Coachman, in consequence of his 

 Master's Carriage having become entangled with another, 

 struck the other Horses, which were standing still without 

 a driver, upon which they ran away and upset the Carriage, 

 the Jury thought that the entangling arose originally from 

 the fault of the Coachman, and that as he was acting irithiii 

 the scope of his employment in endeavoming to extricate 

 himself, the Master was liable (/). 



The fact that a Passenger in an Omnibus is struck by the 

 driver's whip is prinid facie evidence of negligence by the 

 driver in the course of his employment ; and even if it 

 appears that the blow was struck at the Servant of another 

 Omnibus, with whom there had been a dispute, and who 

 had jumped on the Omnibus step to get his number, it is a 

 question for the Jiuy whether the blow was struck by the 

 driver in private spite, or in supposed fm'therance of his 

 Employer's interests (g). 



It was held by the Exchequer Chamber in the case of 

 Seymour v. Greenwood {h) that the Master was liable, where 

 the Gruard of an Omnibus belonging to him, in removing 

 therefrom a Passenger, whom he deemed to be di'unk, 

 dragged him out with imdue violence, and threw him upon 

 the ground, whereby he was seriously injm-ed ; for the 

 Master, by giving the Gruard authority to remove offensive 

 Passengers, necessarily gives him authority to determine 

 whether any Passenger had misconducted himseK. And 

 inasmuch as the Master puts the Gruard in his place because 

 it is not convenient for him personally to conduct the 



(e) Sooth V. Mister, 7 C. & P. G6. 



( f) Per Curiam in Croft v. Alison, 

 4 B. & Aid. 592. 



(g) Ward v. General Omnibus Co., 

 42 L. J., C. P. 265 ; 28 L. T., 



N. S. 850— Ex. Ch., affirming the 

 decision of C. P., 27 L. T., N. S. 

 761 ; 21 W. R. 358. 



{h) Sei/moicr v. Greenwood, 7 H. & 

 N. 355. 



