238 



LIVERY-STABLE KEEPERS, AGISTERS, ETC. 



Horses 

 driven by 

 the owner's 

 servants to a 

 certain place. 



Travelling 

 post. 



Horses 

 driven about 

 town by the 

 owner's ser- 

 vant. 



Zaugher v. 

 Pointer. 



Owner held 

 liable in 



Where horses are hired to draw a private carriage to a 

 certain place, and they are driven by the ozcner's servants, 

 the owner is liable for any damage done through the ser- 

 vants' negligence. For where a person hired horses to 

 take his own carriage to Epsom, and he was driven by the 

 oicner's postboys, Lord Ellenborough held that a person 

 who hires horses under such circumstances has not the 

 entire management and power over them, but that they 

 continue under the control and power of the servants who 

 are entrusted with the driving ; and that the owner of them 

 would be answerable for any accident occasioned by the 

 postboys' misconduct on the road ; and his lordship men- 

 tioned a case of the kind, ia which damages were recovered 

 against the ouner of a chaise for an injury done by it when 

 Mr. Burton, a Welsh judge, was in it, and who was called 

 as a witness (/). 



And where horses were hired to draw a private carriage 

 to Windsor, the oicner of the horses was held liable for 

 damage done, because they were under the care and direc- 

 tion of his servant {g). 



And in the case of Sir Henry Hoghton (Ji), horses were 

 hired by him to draw his carriage, travelling jMst, and he 

 was held not to be answerable for damage which had been 

 done. 



But where horses have been hired to be driven about by 

 the owner's .seri«)ii! wherever the hirer pleases, and for which 

 he gives him some gratuity, there seems at one time to 

 have been a difference of opinion among the judges as to 

 the party liable for injury done. 



In Laugher v. Pointer («'), where the able judgments on 

 both sides, as is observed by Mr. Justice Story in his book 

 on Agency, " exhausted the whole learning of the subject," 

 the judges of the Court of King's Bench were equally 

 divided, Chief Justice Abbott and Mr. Justice Littledale 

 holding that the hirer of the horses was not hable for an 

 injury done, and Mr. Justice Bayley and Mr. Justice 

 Holroyd being of the contrary opinion. 



In the case of Quarman v. Burnett (A-), the owners of 



Samuel v. Wright, 6 Esp. 263 ; 

 Smith V. Lawrence, 2 M. (& E. 1. 



(/) Dean V. Branthwaite, 5 Esp. 

 35 ; and quoted by Mr. Justice 

 Littledale in Laugher v. Pointer, 5 

 B. &C. 558. 



{g) SamtielY. Wright, 5 Esp. 263. 



(A) Sir H. Lloghton's case, cited 5 



B. & C. 556. 



()) Lavgher v. Pointer, 5 B. & C. 

 558. 



{k) Quarman v. Burnett, 6 M. & 

 W. 499. See also Jones v. Corpora- 

 tion of Liverpool, 14 CI. B. D. 890 ; 

 64 L. J., Q. B. 345 ; 33 W. E. 551. 



