220 LIABILITY OF MASTER DEFINED. 



that if a master sends fiis servant on an errand, irUltuid }wov!din(j him 

 trifh a fiorse, and the servant takes one and rules it in the doing of si/eh 

 errand, and au injury happens in consequence, the master is not liable 

 in an action for damages by the party injured. If it were otherwise, 

 every master might be ruined by acts done by his servant without his 

 knowledge or authority. And Tindal C.J. ruled in Ulidge v. Goodwin, 

 that // a horse and cart are teft in the street Inj a servant, without any one 

 to watch them, the owner is liable for any damage done, even though it 

 be occasioned by the act of a passer-by in striking the horse. See also 

 Croft V. Alison, 4 B. & Aid. 590. 



]\Ir. Baron Parke observed, in Gordon v. Rolt, " The result of the 

 authorities is, that fa servant, in the coarse of his master's employ, drives 

 over any 2}('rson, and does a ivilful injury, the servant, and not the master, 

 is liable in tresjMss; if the servant, by his negligent driving, causes an 

 injury, the master is liable in case ; if the master himself is driving, he 

 is either liable in case for his negligence, or in trespass, because the act 

 was wilful. In Maclaughlin v. Pryor, the master, though not actually 

 driving, was present, and directing the driver; therefore there was 

 evidence that he sanctioned the conduct of his servant, from which the 

 injury arose." And see his lordship's judgment in Sliarrod v. The 

 London and North Western Railway Company, where some cattle were 

 killed by a railway engine. A person driving a carriage is not dound to 

 keep on the regidar side of the road; but if he does not, he must use more 

 care, and keep a better look out, to avoid concussion, than would be 

 necessary if he were on the regular side of the road {Pluclavelly. Wilso7i). 

 And per Mcnde J. : " It is negligence not to drive an inferior vehicle 

 with such a degree of care as its inferiority requires, just as it would be 

 negligence to drive a high-spirited horse with no more care than a dull 

 one " {Templeman apjxillant v. Hagdon respondent). This was an appeal 

 against the decision of a Somersetshire county court judge, in an action 

 for negligently driving a horse and cart ; the plaintiff having simply 

 ))roved the fact of a collision, under circumstances which might or 

 might not amount to negligence. The defendant proved that the horse, 

 ])erfectly quiet up to the time, and going slowly, suddenly began to kick 

 very violently ; both shafts broke ofiP, the cart tilted up, and himself and 

 a woman and four dead i)igs were thrown into the road, that he himself 

 was rendered insensible, and that the horse, which then ran away, had 

 not sufficient room to pass the plaintiff's horse and gig on the proper 

 side of the road. The judge ordered a verdict for the plaintiff, being 

 of opinion that the breaking of the shafts, even under the circumstances 

 stated by the defendant's witnesses, showed a defect in the cart, which 

 raised a presumption of negligence in the owner, and the appeal was 



