ACTS WITHIN SCOPE OF EMPLOYMENT. 185 



repeatedly been found liable for injury caused by a horse and 

 cart, or other vehicle, under the care of their servants, (a) 



Aqain, a master was found liable for his «froom neqli- 

 gently using spurs, and causing the horse he was riding to 

 kick and injure a waggoner ; (6) and where a servant in the 

 course of his employment gives the reins to a stranger, and a 

 person is injured through his careless driving, (c) or if a servant 

 leave a horse and cart unattended, and a third party strike 

 it,((/-) and damage ensue, his master is liable. In another case, 

 however, a defendant's horse, by the negligence of his servant, 

 ran away with a cart, and turned into the yard of the defen- 

 dant's house, which opened on to the highway; and the plain- 

 tiff's wife, who happened to be j^ajdng a visit at the defendant's 

 house, ran out into the yard to see what was the matter, when 

 she was met and knocked down by the horse and cart. It was 

 held that, as the defendant's servant was not bound to antici- 

 pate that the plaintiff's wife would be in the 3^ard, there was 

 no duty on the part of the defendant towards the plaintift^s 

 wife, and that the action therefore was not maintainable, (e) 



151. Acts within Scope of Employment But to render 



the master so liable the act must be in the regular course of 

 the servant's duty, and it must arise from Avant of skill or 

 attention, and not from a wilful act : for a criminal act will 

 not subject the absent and innocent master.(/) The master's 

 liability rests on implied mandate, and therefore has no place 

 where the limits of the mandate are exceeded. Hence a 

 master is not liable for the crime or trespass of his servant, 

 unless committed by express command, or unless it is the 

 necessary consequence of the orders given by him. (//) Thus, 



(a) Frastr v. Dunlop, 1822, 1 S. 258, overruling Ihih-ymph v. M-QiU, 1804; 

 Hume, 387 ; Baird, cit., and cases cited in § 131. 



(b) North V. Smith, 1861, 10 C.B., N.8. 572. 



(c) Booth V. Mister, 1835, 7 C. and P. 66. 



(d) Illidrjc V. Goodwin, 1831. 5 C. and P. 190. 



(e) Tolhcnisen v. Davis, 1888. 58 L..T., Q.B. 98. 



(/) M'Laren v. lOtc, 1827, 4 Mur. 381 ; Miller v. Ilarvie, 1827, 4 INIur. 385. 

 {y) YoiuHj V. Colt's Trusttts, 1832, 10 S. 066 ; Fvascr, M. and S. 261, 274. 



