240 



LIVERY-STABLE KEEPERS, AGISTERS, ETC. 



"Where the 

 hirer is liable 

 for damage. 



Hirer liable 

 through his 

 own conduct. 



Hirer liable 

 where he 

 might haye 

 controlled his 

 servant. 



M'Laughlin t. 

 Fryor. 



the same in perfect repair without any further charges 

 whatever," is not liable for repairs made necessary by 

 accident. And in a case where the owner had so bound 

 himself. Lord Denman said, " Looking at the terms of the 

 agreement, it seems to me that the only case in which 

 the defendant could be subjected to the expense of repairs 

 is the case of damage happening through the ivilful default 

 of the defendant. "With regard to the evidence of the 

 usage of the trade, the language of the agreement between 

 the parties being clear and unequivocal, evidence as to the 

 general usage of the trade cannot be of any avail " (o). 



The hirer of a horse or carriage is liable for damage 

 occasioned by the negligence of himself or his servant ; and 

 where two persons hire a carriage, they are both answerable 

 for any damage occasioned by the negligent driving of one 

 of them ; but if it be hired by one only, the other, who is 

 a laeve passenger, is not liable (p). 



It is undoubtedly true that there may be special circum- 

 stances which may render tbe hirer of job horses and ser- 

 vants responsible for the neglect of a servant, though not 

 liable by virtue of the general relation of master and servant. 

 Thus, he may become so by his own conduct, as by taking 

 the actual management of the horses, or ordering the ser- 

 vant to drive in a particular manner which occasions the 

 damage complained of (q). 



When a master and servant are together in a carriage, 

 and an injury ensues, the master, from his mere presence, 

 is a co-tresjxisser, if the act of the servant amount to a 

 trespass (r). And on this principle where a carriage and 

 horses are hired, and the postboys are servants of the 

 owner ; if the hirer be sitting outside, and have a view of 

 their proceedings, and do not interfere to prevent their 

 misconduct, and an injury ensues, he is a co-t.res2Msser 

 with them, because as he did not endeavour to stop their 

 improper proceedings he has adopted their conduct as 

 his own. 



The Court of Common Pleas entered fully into the 

 subject, and laid down the law upon it in the case of 

 M'Laughlin v. Pryor (s), in which a trespass had been com- 



(o) Reading v. Menham, 1 M. & 

 Eob. 234. 



(p) Dai'i/Y. Chamlerlayne, i Esp. 

 229. 



(q) Per Parke, B., Quarman t. 

 Burnett, 6M. &W. 499. 



{)•) Chandler v. Brmghton, 1 Cr. 

 & JI. 229. 



is) WLaughlin v. Prijor, 1 C. & 

 Marsh. 354; i Scott, N. E. 655; 

 4 M. & G. 48. 



