184 master's liability. 



this respect by giving him a power of dismissing his servant 

 when his orders are not obeyed ; and a coachman may be 

 dismissed even for driving other people in his master's 

 carriage contrary to orders, (ct) " Although a master will 

 be liable if his coachman negligently runs down or injures 

 a pedestrian in a public street, he will incur no liability U 

 a friend whom he has invited to ride with him in his car- 

 riage, and who is injured by the carelessness of his generaiy 

 competent coachman. The foot-passenger on the public roid 

 is a stranger, but the friend or acquaintance who has accepted 

 a drive in the carriage will not be considered as such. . . . 

 He takes the risk himself, provided only that the servj^ts 

 were competent, and selected with reasonable care.^(6) 

 A master is also responsible for injury occasioned by his 

 servant in negligently obeying a lawful command, (c) and 

 also for a wanton and reckless discharge of duty by his ser- 

 vant within the scope of his employment, but not for winton 

 or malicious acts of the servant to serve his own ends^^fZ) or 

 for illegal acts willfully done;(e) still less for the unauttorised 

 act of a third party. ( / ) 



" If a servant, driving his master's carriage aloig the 

 highway, carelessly runs over a bystander . . . the person 

 injured has a right to treat the wrongful or careles act as 

 the act of the master, qui facit per aihtiii facet i)e) se. If 

 the master himself had driven his carriage impropely . . . 

 he would have been directly responsible, and the hw does 

 not permit him to escape liability because the act coniDlained 

 of Avas not done with his own hiind."(g) Thus, masers have 



(a) Thomson v. Stewart, 18S8, 15 R. 806. 



(b) Lord Gifford in Woodhead v. Gartncss Mineral Company, ISSJ 4 R. 469, 

 505 ; see also Moffat v. Batcman, 1869, L.R. 3 P.C. 115. 



(c) Faulds V. Townsend, 1861, 23 D. 437. 



(d) Lord Glenlee in Baird v. Hamilton, 1826, 4 S. 790. 



(e) Patteson, J., in Lyons v. Martin, 1838, 8 A. and E. 512 ; Braiwell, J., in 

 Degg v. Midland Railway Company, 1857, ] H. and N. 773. 



(/) Moyes v. Greig, 1841, 3 D. 10S8, where the owner of a cart ai^i horse was 

 found not liable for damage caused by its being interfered with vithout his 

 authority. 



(g) Per Lord Cranworth in Bartonshill Coal Co. v. licid, 1858, 3 ]M'|. 266, 283. 



