NEGLIGENT DRIVING BY A SERVANT. 337 



Omnibus, if tlie Guard forms a wrong judgment, the 

 Master is responsible (/). 



But where a van was standing at the door of the plaintiff, Servant re- 

 from which the plaintiff''s goods were being unladen, and ^°T^°i^^^ 

 the plaintiff's gig was standing behind the van : and the 

 defendant's Coachman drove her Carriage up, and there 

 not being room for the Carriage to pass, the Coachman got 

 off his bos and laid hold of the van Horse's head ; and 

 this caused the van to move, and thereby a packing-case 

 fell out of the van and broke the shafts of the gig ; it was 

 held, with the assent of the Barons sitting in the Exchequer 

 Chamber, that the defendant was not liable, as the Coach- 

 man was not acting in the employ of his Mistress, that is, 

 within the scope of his employment, at the time this matter 

 occurred [k). 



If a Servant does what his Master employs him to do in Servant act- 

 a negligent, improper or round-about way, and damage is ^°^ ™P^o- 

 done, his Master is liable (/). 



If a Servant diiving his Master's cart, on his Master's Making a de- 

 business, make a detour from the direct road for some ^"e^- for his 

 pm'pose of his o^vn, his Master ^vill be answerable in """^ P^^P^^®^- 

 damages for any injury occasioned by his careless driving- 

 while so out of his road (ni). Because wherever the Master 

 has intrusted the Servant with the control of the Carriage, 

 it is no answer that the Servant acted improperly in the 

 management of it ; but the Master in such case will be 

 liable, because he has put it in the Servant's power to 

 mismanage the Carriage by entrusting him with it. And 

 this was so held by Mr. Justice Erskine, where a Servant, 

 having set his Master down in Stamford Street, was 

 directed by him to put up in Castle Street, Leicester 

 Square ; but in so doing, he went to deliver a parcel of his 

 own in Old Street Road, and in retiu-ning along it he 

 di-ove against an old woman and injured her {ii). 



So, in Whatman \. Pearson (o), the defendant, a contractor 

 under a district board, was engaged in constructing a 

 sewer, and employed men with Horses and Carts. The 

 men so employed were allowed an hour for dinner, but 

 were not permitted to go home to dine, or leave their 



(«) Per Williams, J., Seymour v. (jh) Joel \. Morrison, 6 C. & P. 



Grcemcood, 7 H. & N. 355. 501. 



(A-) Lamb v. Lady Elizabeth Fall; («) Sleath v. Wilson, 9 C. & P. 



9 C. & P. 629. 608. 



(/) See per Cresswell, J., Mitchell {o) L. E., 3 C. P. 422; and see 



V. Crasm-eller, 22Ij. J., CP-lOi. Burns v. Paulson, L. E,., 8 C. P. 



563; 42 L. J., C. P. 302. 



O. Z 



