NEGLIGENT DRIVING BY A SERVANT. 311 



Negligent Driving by a Servant. 



It was formerly held that the master was liable only "When the 



where his servant caused injury by doing: a lawful act neqli- master was 



• Ii3.bl6 Record^ 



gently, but not where he uilfuUy did an illegal one ; and, ing to former 



therefore, in cases of negligent driving, where the servant decisions. 

 had the authority of his master to do the particular act, 

 namely, to drive along the highway, which is perfectly 

 lawful in itself, it was held by Mr. Justice Patteson that 

 the master was chargeable, because the act so authorized 

 by him had been done negligently ; but that if the servant 

 drove wilfully against another, the master was not charge- 

 able for the injury done (s). 



But this definition is not an exhaustive one, for the Liability now 

 liability of the master extends beyond the lawful acts of ^'^^^ *" "^ 

 his servant. And the test of his liability is, not whether ^lye. 

 the acts of his servant are illegal and wilful, or the con- 

 trary, but whether they are within the scope of the servant's 

 employment and in the execution of the service for which 

 he is engaged (a). 



In the case of Limpus v. The General Omnibus Com- i^impus v. The 

 pany {a), decided in the Exchequer Chamber, which fixed ,riiKs Com-"" 

 and defined the law on this subject, the driver of the pany. 

 defendant's omnibus drove it across the road in front of 

 a rival omnibus belonging to the plaintiff, which was 

 thereby overturned. The driver said, that he pulled across 

 the plaintiff's omnibus to prevent it passing him. The 

 defendants had given printed instructions to their driver 

 not to obstruct any omnibus. 



Mr. Baron Martin, before whom the case was tried. Acts done 

 directed the jury that, " When the relation of master and ^o'^^g^^an^ 

 servant existed, the master was responsible for the reckless for master's 

 and improper conduct of his servant in the course of the interest. 

 service; that if the jury believed that the defendant's 

 driver, being dissatisfied and irritated with the plaintiff's 

 driver, acted recklessly, wantonly, and improperly, but in 

 the course of the service and employment, and doing that 

 which he believed to be for the interest of the defendants, 

 then they were responsible ; that if the act of the defen- 

 dants' driver, although a reckless driving on his part, was 

 nevertheless an act done by him in the course of his service 



(z) Lyons y. Martin, 8 A. & E. 5 E. E. 618. 

 615 ; S. C.,3 Nev. & P. 609 ; and see {a) Limpus v. The General Omni- 



M'Manus v. Cricket, 1 East, 106; bus Co., 1 H. & C. 626. 



