RELA.TIONSHIP OF MASTER AND SERVANT. 189 



from liability if wliat is done is witliin tlie general scope of 

 the servant's employment. A servant, when doing what he 

 is either expressl}^ or tacitly authorised to do b}^ his master, 

 has a right to use his own judgment and skill, and even in 

 some cases take a wrong way of doing a thing and the master 

 must trust to it. But if a master has expressly forbidden a 

 particular act to be done at all, there is no ground for attach- 

 ing hability to him. (a) 



155. The Relationship of Master and Servant must 

 exist to render the Master Liable. — When the parties are 

 not in the relation of master and servant at the time of the 

 injury, the master is not liable for injury caused by his 

 servant. Thus, a master was not liable where the servant 

 had his master's permission to go to a fair and use his horse 

 and gig for his OAvn pleasure ;(6) nor where the master had 

 allowed his servant to work for a third party whose control 

 he was under when the injury happened.(c) In another case, 

 a driver of a coach was killed by a heap of lime negligently 

 left unprotected on the road. The proprietor of the house 

 had contracted with builders to make repairs on it, and the 

 builders sub-contracted for the plaster-work with the plasterer, 

 who left the heap of lime unfenced. An action was brought 

 against the proprietor, builder, and plasterer, and it was held 

 that liability only rested against the plasterer. (c?) Again, if 

 a man sends his servant a message and he meets a friend who 

 lends him his horse to ride, and an injmy happens, the master 

 is not liable ; but if the master authorise the use of the horse, 

 he is liable, (e) 



The relationship may be proved by general evidence infer- 



(a) Fraser v. Younger <i: Sons, 1867, 5 M. 861 ; Stevens v. Woodward, 1S81, 

 L.R. 6 Q.B.D. 318. 



(b) Cormack v. Dighy, 1876, 9 Ir. C.L.R. 557, 



(c) Cockburn, CJ., in Rourke v. ]Vhit€m'>ss Colliery Co., 1877, L.R. 2 C.P.D. 

 205-208. 



(d) M'Laen v. Russell, 1850, 12 D. 887. 



(c) Goodnum v. Kennell, 1827, 3 C. and P. 167. 



