340 



NEGLIGEXCE IN THE USE OF HORSES, ETC, 



No express 

 authority of 

 Master ne- 

 cessary. 



Master's 

 name on the 

 Cart. 



Giving an 

 address. 



Action for 

 bodily liui't. 



posing that if a man sends his Servant on an errand with- 

 out providing him with a Horse, and he meets a friend 

 who has one, who permits him to ride, and an injury- 

 happens in consequence, the Master is responsible for 

 that act. If it were so, every Master might be ruined 

 by acts done by his Servant, without his knowledge or 

 authority" (*•). 



But where (//) the General Manager of the defendant, 

 a Horsedealer, had a Horse and gig of his own, which he 

 used for the defendant's business as well as his own, and 

 was allowed to keep them on the defendant's premises 

 at the defendant's expense ; and, on one occasion, the 

 Manager, on putting the Horse into the gig, told the 

 defendant that he was going to S. to collect a debt for him 

 and afterwards to see his own doctor ; and before he got 

 to S. he drove against and killed the plaintiff's Horse ; 

 it was held that there was abundant evidence to make 

 the defendant responsible, although he had not expressly 

 requested the Manager to use the Horse and Grig on that 

 occasion ; and that it is not necessary in cases of this sort 

 that there should be any express request, as the Jury 

 may imply a request or assent from the general nature 

 of the Servant's duty and employment (s). And it was 

 also held in the same case {>/) that the proper cj[uestion to 

 leave to the Jury is, whether at the time of the act com- 

 plained of, the Servant was driving on his Master's 

 business and with his authority. 



If it appear that the Master holds himself out to the 

 world as the owner of a Cart by suffering his name to 

 remain painted on it, and over the door of the house of 

 business to which it belongs, an action is maintainable 

 against him, although it is proved that he had for some 

 days ceased to be the owner of the Cart, or to be concerned 

 in the business {a). 



"Where a Carriage strikes against another, and a person 

 who sees the transaction demands the addi^ess of the owner, 

 the Address given by a person in the Carriage is admissible 

 in evidence ; but a statement that any damages done will 

 be paid for is not so {b). 



"Where a party has received a bodily hurt from negli- 



(.(■) Goodman v. Koinell, 3 C. & P. 

 167. 



{y) Paticn v. Rea, 26 L. J., C. P. 

 235. 



{z) Turlervlll'} v. Stampe, 1 Lord 

 Eaym. 264. 



{a) Stables v. Eky, 1 C. & P. 614. 



[b] Beamon v. Elliee, 4 C. & P. 

 586. 



