428 BAILMENT. 



they broke through, and not to be hable for not notifying 

 the driver of a thin place, where the horses were uncon- 

 trollable and such a precaution could not have saved them.^* 



Where an animal is hired or borrowed so as to give the 

 hirer or borrower complete control over it, he and not the 

 owner is responsible for damage arising from its vicious 

 habits,^'' or trespasses,^" or from his own negligence.^^ 



Where one of several joint hirers drives and causes an in- 

 jury to the carriage and horses, the agreement having been 

 that the driver alone should drive, all of the hirers are liable.^^ 

 So, where a horse is hired by A. and delivered on his credit 

 by the owner to B. who drives it to death with the co- 

 operation of A., who is driving another horse in company 

 with him — they may be held jointly liable.*'^ And where the 

 defendants hired a team of horses and one of the defendants 

 shot one, alleging it was diseased and acting merely on his 

 own opinion which was shown by the evidence to have been 

 erroneous, it was held that the defendants were jointly liable 

 for the horse's death.^* 



101. Negligence of Servants — When the servant of a bailee 

 for hire of a mare takes and uses it in the business in which 

 he is employed by the bailee, the master is liable for a loss 

 arising from carelessness, though no express assent is 

 shown.®^ So, one who hires a horse and carriage is liable 



'" Stacy V. Knickerbocker Ice Co., 84 Wis. 614. 



" Bell V. Leslie, 24 Mo. App. 661, citing Shearm. & Red. on Negl. § 195. 

 Otherwise, where the resulting injury is to the animal itself. The plain- 

 tiff must then show that it is not vicious: Hale v. Smith, 78 N. Y. 480. 

 And see, on this subject, § 96, supra. See, also, Beliveau v. Martineau, 

 Montr. L. Rep. 2 Q. B. 133. 



" See § 76, supra. =' Bard v. Yohn, 26 Pa. St. 482. 



Where he is injured as the result of the slipping of a saddle which he 

 knew was improperly adjusted, he cannot recover: Wilson v. Dickel, 

 7 N. Y. App. Div. 175. 



°^ O'Brien v. Bound, 2 Spears (S. C.) 495. 



" Banfield v. Whipple, 10 Allen (Mass.) 27. 



" Morris v. Armit, 4 Ma. 152. " Sinclair v. Pearson, 7 N. H. 219. 



