LENDING AN UNSAFE LADDEH. 219 



being ilic real cause, nor in case of his dying from the injury, can his 

 representative under Lord Campbell's Act (9 & 10 Vict. c. 93), recover 

 against his master, there being no evidence that the injury arose 

 through the personal negligence of the master {Dijnen v. Leach). Nor 

 is it any evidence of such jJcrsonal negligence of ike master, that he has 

 in use in his works an engine or machine which is less safe than some 

 other which is in general use {ih.). But it was decided l:)y the Exchequer 

 Chamber that where a master builder personally interferes and directs 

 his workmen to make a scaffolding out of poles which he knows to be 

 unsound, he is liable to make compensation if the scaffolding gives way, 

 and a workman upon it in his employ, who has had no notice of the 

 unsoundness, is injured thereby {Roherts v. Smillt). And see AIsop v. 

 Yates, 27 L. J. Ex. 150. 



A declaration that the defendant was possessed of a ladder, unsafe 

 and unfit for use by any person carrying corn up the same, and the 

 plaintiff was the defendant's servant, yet the defendant, well knowing 

 the premises, wrongfully and deceitfully ordered the plaintiff to carry 

 corn up the ladder, and the plaintiff in obedience to the order, and 

 believing the ladder to be proper for the purpose, and not knowing the 

 contrary, did therefore carry corn up it for the defendant ; but by reason 

 of its being unsafe and unfit, the plaintiff fell and was injured, was held 

 in Williams v. Clovgh, BramiveJl B. (Jul)., to be sufficient without an 

 averment that the plaintiff had no notice that the ladder was unsafe. 

 And senibh, the gratuitous lender of an article unfit for use to his 

 knowledge, is not liable to a person whose user of it he has not fore- 

 seen, for an injury caused by the unfitness {Blachnore Adx. v. Bristol & 

 Exeter Raihcay C'om^mny). 



In Joel V. Morison, Parke B. ruled that if a servant driving his master's 

 cart on his master's business 7nalce a, detour from the direct road for some 

 jmrpose of Ids oivn, his master will be answerable in damages for any 

 injury occasioned by his careless driving while so out of the road. But 

 if a servant take his master's cart tvithotct leave, at a time when it is not 

 wanted for the purposes of business, and drive it about solely for his 

 own purposes, the master will not be answerable for any injury he may 

 do. And this ruling was confirmed by the Court of Common Pleas in 

 the case of Mitchell v. Crasiualler, where the defendant's carman, instead 

 of putting up his horse and cart when the day's work was done, without 

 the defendant's leave, drove a fellow-servant in an opposite direction to 

 the mews, and on his way back injured the plaintiff by his negligent 

 driving. The defendants, under Not guilty, were allowed to show that 

 the driver was not at that time acting as their servant. The Coui't of 

 Queen's Bench upheld the ruling of Parke J. in Goodman v. Kenuel 



