uc 



llOUSK \\ AKK \N 1 \. 



Limpiii V. 



London 



General 



Omnibus 



Company. 



responsililo, tlio jury finding' tluit the injury was 

 done l»y tlio servant (the conduotor) in the course 

 c»f liis cTuploymeut nhout liis master's business, 

 and llio court remarking tliat tlio master jmt the 

 conductor in his i)lacc. Again, where an omnibus 

 company gave written instructions to their drivers 

 " to tb-ive at a steady pace, and not on any account 

 to race with or obstruct other onmibuses," and a 

 (biver disobeyed these instructions and wilfully 

 obstnicted another omnibus, by drawing across the 

 road and ran against it and upset it : it was lield, 

 in the Exchequer Chamber, that the instructions 

 given by the omnibus company to their servants 

 would not exonerate the former from responsibility 

 for the wilful and malicious act of their servants 

 while carrying passengers for the benefit of the 

 company (r). Generally speakini^, and it must bo 

 remembered the question is a dillicidt one, for it is 

 a question of implied authority, in all cases of 

 negligent and rash driving b}- a servant employed 

 to drive, the master will be held responsible if the 

 servant was driving about his master's business or 

 using the carriage and horses for the master's 

 benefit ; and the master will not bo excused by 

 shcjwing that the servant was acting contrary to 

 his orders. 



Anyone liiring a horse should bo careful not to 



(r) Umpw V. London Gen. Om. Co., I H. & C. 626, and 32 

 L. J., Kxch. U. 



