338 



NEGLIGENCE IN THE USE OF HORSES, ETC. 



Servant act- 

 ing contrary 

 to his trust. 



Taking his 

 Master's 

 Horse -with- 

 out leave. 



Horses and Carts. One of the men Avent home, about 

 a quarter of a mile out of the direct line of his work to his 

 dinner, and left his Horse unattended in the street before 

 his door. The Horse ran away and damaged certain 

 raihngs belonging to the plaintiff ; and it was held that it 

 was properly left to the Jury to say whether the driver was 

 acting within the scope of his employment, and that they 

 were justiiEied in finding that he Avas. 



But where a Servant is acting, and knows that he is 

 acting, contrary to his trust, and to his Master's employ- 

 ment, the Master is not liable for any damage which may 

 be done by him (p). 



Thus if a Servant without his Master's leave or knowledge 

 take his Cart or Carriage when it is not wanted, and drive 

 it about for his oaati piu^poses, the Master is not answerable 

 for any injury he may do, because he has not in such case 

 intrusted him with the Cart or Carriage {q). So where it 

 was the duty of the defendant's Carman, after having 

 delivered his Master's goods for the day, to return to the 

 house, get the key of the Stable, and put up his Horse and 

 Cart in a Mews in an adjoining Street; on his return one 

 eveniug he got the key, and instead of going to the Mews, 

 and without the defendant's leave, he drove a fellow-servant 

 in an opposite direction, and on his way back injured the 

 plaintiff by his negligent driving ; it was held that the 

 defendant was not liable (>■). 



And this is fm-ther illustrated by Storey v. AsJiton. In 

 that case the defendant, a wine merchant, sent his Carman 

 and clerk with a Horse and Cart to deliver some wine, and 

 bring back some empty bottles ; on their retm-n, when 

 about a quarter of a mile from the defendant's offices, the 

 Carman, instead of performing his duty and driving to the 

 defendant's offices, depositing the bottles, and taking the 

 Horse and Cart to stables in the neighbom-hood, was 

 induced by the clerk (it being after business hoiu-s) to 

 drive in quite another direction on business of the clerk's ; 

 and while they were thus driving the plaintiff was nm 

 over, owing to the negligence of the Carman ; it was held 

 that the defendant was not liable, for that the Carman 

 was not doing the act, in doing which he had been guilty 

 of negligence, in the com-se of his employment as a Ser- 



{p) See per Cresswell, J. , MitchcU 

 V. Cnissiccllcr, 22 L. J., C. P. 10-1. 

 {'[) Joel V. Morrison, 6 C. & P. 



501 ; Slcath v. Wilson, 9 C. & P. 

 608. 



{)•) Mitchell V. CrasswcUer, 22 L. 

 •T., C. P. 100. 



