NEGLIGENT DRIVING 15Y A SERVANT. 341 



gent driving, he may of course personally recover damages 

 for the injiuy done to him. 



If a Servant, in the course of his Master's employ, Liability of 

 drives over any person and does a wilful injiuy (described Master and 

 by Martin, B., as an act of his own, and in order to effect gpectlvely^" ■" 

 a purpose of his own) (c) , the Servant, and not the Master, 

 is liable ; if the Servant, by his negligent driving, in the 

 course of his employment, causes an injmy, the Master is 

 liable ; if the Master himself is diiviug, or though not 

 actually dii\dng is sanctioning the conduct of his Servant, 

 he is liable whether the damage be the effect of negligence 

 or of a wilfid act done or sanctioned by him (d). 



It is a well-established rule of law that a Servant cannot Negligence 

 ordinarily sue his Master for an iniuiT sustained thi-oug^h °* fellow- 

 the negligence of a fellow-servant (e). And a stranger 

 invited by a Servant, or one who volunteers to assist a Ser- 

 vant in his work, while engaged in giving such assistance, 

 bears the same relation to the Master as a Servant, and is 

 subject to the same disabilities in this respect (/). But a 

 person who, with the consent of a Railway Company, assists 

 in unloading goods consigned to him by their line, is not a 

 volunteer within this rule (g). 



But in all cases the Master is bound to use due care in Master bound 

 the selection of competent Servants, and is liable for neg- *« ^^^ ^"^ 



%■! • • 11 X 1 • o X care m selec- 



ence m employing incompetent persons to his Servants ^^^^ ^^ g^j.. 



and to those acting as such. Nevertheless he is not bound vants. 

 to warrant the competency of his Servants ; and in an 

 action against him for an injury done by one of his Ser- 

 vants to another, the question for the Jury is, not whether 

 the Servant was incompetent, but whether the Master exer- 

 cised due care in employing him (A). 



The usual terms on which a Cab Proprietor lets a cab to Liability of 

 a driver are, that the o^vner feeds the horse, and exercises tor to IhivTr 



(c) Limpus V. General Omnibus bility Act, 1880 (43 & 44 Vict. 



Co., ante, p. 332. c.42) ; but that act does not extend 



{d) See per Parke, B., Gordon v. to domestic or menial servants. 



Rolt, 4 Ex. 366; -S'. 6'. 18 L. J., {f) I'otter \. Faulkner, 31 L. J., 



Ex. 433. Q.B. 30. 



{c) Tarrant v. Webb, 25 L. J., {[/) U'rlr/ht v. London and North 



C. P. 261 ; Waller V. South Eastern Western RaUicaii Co., L. E., 10 Q. 



Railway Co., 32 L. J., Ex. 205 ; B. 298; L. E., 1 Q. B. D. 252 ; 45 



Ball V. Johnson, 13 W. R. 411 ; L. J., Q. B. 570; 33 L. T., N. S. 



Wlggett v. Fox, 25 L. J., Ex. 188. 830— C. A. 



The law relating to the liability of {h) Tarrant v. Webb, 25 L. J., 



employers to make compensation C. P. 261 ; Waller v. South Eastern 



for injui'ies suffered by workmen Bailway Co., 32 L. J., Ex. 205; 



in their service is extended and Hall v. Johnson, 13 W. R. 411 ; 



regulated by the Employers' Lia- Wiggett v. Fox, 25 L. J., Ex. 188. 



