218 IXJUllY TO FELLOW SERVA^"T. 



from his master, pulled across the road to obstruct the jirogress of the 

 plaintiff's omnibus, and in so doing injured one of the plaintiff's 

 omnibus hoi-ses. The reason he gave was that he wanted to serve the 

 jilaintiff's driver as that person had served him. And jjcr Williams 

 J. : " If a master employs a servant to drive and manage a carriage, 

 the master is, in my oi)inion, answerable for any misconduct of the 

 servant in driving or managing which can fairly be considered to have 

 resulted from the performance of the functions entrusted to him, and 

 especially if he was acting for his master's benefit, and not for any 

 purpose of furthering his own interest, or for any motive of his own 

 caprice or inclination" {Limpus v. London General Omnilms Comimmj 

 Limited, 32 L. J. Ex. 31). 



Alderson B. thus stated, in a similar case, Hutcldnson v. The TorJr, 

 Newcastle & Berwick Radway Compamj, the principle applicable to the 

 case of several servants employed by the same master, ivhere injury 

 resulted to one of them froyn the negligence of another. "■ In such a case, 

 however," said his lordship, "we are of opinion that the master is not 

 in general responsible when he has selected persons of competent care 

 and skill. Put the case of a master employing A, and B., two of his 

 servants, to drive cattle to market. It is admitted that if by the 

 unskilfulness of A. a stranger is injured, the master is responsible. Not 

 so, if A. by his unskilfulness hurts himself ; he cannot treat that as the 

 want of skill of his master. Suppose, then, that by the unskilfulness 

 of A., B., the other servant, is injured while they are jointly engaged in 

 the same service, there we think B. has no claim on his master. They 

 have both engaged in a common service, the duties of which impose a 

 certain risk on each of them ; and in case of negligence on the part of 

 the other, the party injured knows that the negligence is that of his 

 fellow-servant, and not of his master." In Degg (Adx.) v. The Midland 

 Raihray Company, the ahove rule of law that a master is not in general 

 responsible to his servant for injury occasioned by the negligence 

 of a fellow-servant in the course of their common employmenc, 7cas 

 extended to the case ofajjerson vlio is injured ivhile voluntarily assisting 

 ilm servants in their ivorlc. The deceased, by thus volunteering his 

 services, could not have greater rights, or impose any greater duty 

 on the defendants, than would have existed had he been a hired 

 servant. 



It has also been decided that tchere an ioijury happens to a servant 

 while he is in the actual use of an mistrument, engine, or machine, of the 

 nature of which he is as much aware as his master, and the use of which 

 is, therefore, the proximate cause of the injury, he cannot, at all events 

 if the evidence is consistent with his own negligence in the use of it 



