112 TldRSE -SVAnUANTY. 



ofT nnd injured the plaint ifT Quamian : it was held 

 tliat the defendants, the two ladies, wcro not re- 

 pponsiLle, as the coachman was not their servant, 

 hut the servant of tlio johmaster. In giving judg- 

 ment in this case, Baron Parke remarked, that there 

 may he special circumstances in -which a hirer 

 of jobhorses and servants may become responsible 

 for the negligent acts of the servant, though not 

 liable by virtue of the general relation of master 

 and servant. As, if the hirer takes upon himself 

 tlio actual management of the horses, or order the 

 Maclaugh- servant to drive in a particular manner. So if 

 rlmr. directions are given by the liircr of horses to the 

 driver or postilion of a can-iago to break through 

 a line of carriages and to take up a particular 

 position, or to do any unusual, improper or aggres- 

 sive act, or if ho interferes so as to take the actual 

 management into his own hands, he is responsible, 

 and not the o-sMier or letter, for any damage done 

 by the driver while carrying out the directions 

 given (//). A common error exi.sts amongst job- 

 masters, that if the liirer sits outside beside the 

 driver, then their liability ceases. There is no 

 other foundation fortius notion, than some remarks 

 of the judges in giving judgment in the case last 

 refcrrecl to, where the hirer was sitting outside 

 and directing the postilions. It is always a (]ues- 

 tion for the jury, whether the coachman is acting 



(A) Maclaughliu v. Fnjor, 1 C. k Marsh, 351 ; 1 M. & G. 48. 



