HIRING HOESES. 



243 



down in Gregory v. Piper (t) and Chandler v. BroucjMon («(), 

 m which latter case it was held that where master and 

 servant are together in a vehicle, and an accident occurs, 

 from which an immediate injury ensues, the master is liable 

 m trespass and not in case, although the servant was driving, 

 and not only no evidence was given on the part of the 

 plaintiff of any interference on the master's part, bat the 

 evidence on the part of the defendant distinctly negatives 

 any interference ; so that the mere presence of the master 

 with the servant will constitute him a trespasser, if the act 

 of the servant amount to a trespass. Upon the whole, 

 therefore, in this case, I think the jury may have come 

 justly to the conclusion that the defendant was a co-trespasser 

 with the postboys." And in this decision Coltman, Ersldne 

 and Cress well. Justices, concurred (x). 



It is always a question for the jury whether the driver is ^^^ i^^. 

 acting as servant for the hirer or owner ; and Lord Abingcr, "iJether'^the 

 in leaving that point to the jury, observed, " that no satis- servant is 

 factory line could be drawn, at which, as a matter of law, acting for the 

 the general owner of a carriage, or rather the general owuer!'^ 

 employer of a driver, ceased to be responsible, and the 

 temporary hirer to become so; each case of this class must 

 depend upon its own circumstances " (y). 



A hirer may of course, by agreement, make himself 

 answerable for accidents. Thus in the following case it 

 appeared that a man who let out horses to hire told a 

 person who applied to him for one, that he had no horse 

 at home but a black one which shied, and that if he took it 

 on hire he must be answerable for all accidents. The horse 

 was engaged for six weeks at a certain price, and it 

 appeared that whilst it was in the hirer's possession it came 

 down upon the road in consequence of shying, and suffered 

 a material injury in having its fetlock severely cut by a 

 glass bottle. The owner of the horse brought an action 

 against the hirer on his agreement, and the latter was held 

 answerable for the damage done (z). 



A hirer's 

 agreement. 



(t) Gregory v. Fiper, 9 B. & C. 

 591; 4M. &E. 500. 



(«) Chandler v. Broughton, 1 C. & 

 M. 29. 



[x) McLaughlin v. Pryor, 1 C. & 

 Marsh. 354 ; S. C, 4 Scott, N. E. 



655 ; 4 M. & G. 48. 



{y) Brady v. Giles, 1 M. & Eob. 

 496. 



(z) Jeffery v. Walton, 1 Stark. 

 N. P. C. 267. 



E 2 



