314 



NEGLIGENCE IN THE USE OF HORSES, ETC. 



Eelationship 

 of master and 

 servant not 

 inferred. 



Liability of 

 cab proprie- 

 tor. 



all objection, and meets the suggestion that the jury may- 

 have been misled by the previous part of the summing-up." 



Generally speaking, the relationship of master and servant 

 will not be inferred. Thus where the plaintiff's horse was 

 injured by another horse which became restive owing to the 

 noise of the band of the Salvation Army in the public street, 

 and he thereupon brought an action against the head of the 

 Salvation Army for damages ; it was held, that in the 

 absence of evidence to show what the relationship was 

 between the particular members of the Army and the defen- 

 dant, it could not be inferred that such members were his 

 servants, or were acting under his authority (b) . 



Under the London Hackney Carriages Act, 1843 (6 & 7 

 Vict. c. 86), so far as the public is concerned, the registered 

 proprietor of a hackney carriage is responsible for the acts 

 of his driver whilst he is plying for hire as if the relationship 

 of master and servant existed between them, even though 

 it does not, in fact, exist (c). 



The registered proprietor of a cab in London is therefore 

 liable for the loss of a passenger's luggage through the 

 negligence of the driver (d), or for personal injury to the 

 passenger or a stranger (e), or damage to the horse or 

 carriage of another (/), caused by the negligence of the 

 driver, where there is no wrongful user of the cab by the 

 driver. Tlie fact that the driver through whose negligence 

 the injury was caused is really the servant of a person to 

 whom the cab has been let by the proprietor is immaterial, 

 for the latter cannot, by letting his cab, escape from his 

 liability under the statute. But the right of action against 

 the proprietor which the statute gives to the injured party 

 in such a case does not interfere with any right of action 

 which the latter may have at common law against the 

 driver's master in the ordinary sense of that word (g). 



[h) London General Omnibus Co. 

 V. Sooth, 63 L. J., a. B. 244. 



{c) King v. London Lmprored Cab 

 Co., 23 Q. B. D. 281 ; 58 L. J., 

 Q. B. 456; 61 L. T.,N. S. 34; 37 

 W. E. 737; 53 J. P. 788— C. A., 

 approving Venables v. Smith, 2 

 U. B. D. 279 ; 46 L. J., CI. B. 470: 

 36 L. T., N. S. 509 ; 25 AY. E. 584; 

 and overruling King v. Spiirr, 8 

 Q. B. D. 104, where it was held that 

 there is only a prima facie presump- 

 tion of such relationship which may be 

 rebutted by the circumstances of the 

 case. See also Keen v. Henry, [1894] 



1 Q. B. 292; 63 L. J., Q. B. 211; 

 69 L. T., N. S. 671 ; 42 AY. E. 214 ; 

 58 J. P. 262— C. A., where the effect 

 of the ruling in King v. London 

 Improved Cab Co. upon the decision 

 in King v. Spiirr was pointed out by 

 the Court. 



id) Powles V. Hider, 25 L. J., 

 Q. B. 331. 



(e) Venables v. Smith, ubi supra ; 

 Kvig V. London Improved Cab Co., 

 ubi supra. 



(/) Keen v. Henry, ubi supra. 



(g) Keen v. Henry, [1895] 2 Q. B. 

 292, 294— per Lord Esher, M.E. 



