316 



NEGLIGENCE IN THE USE OF HORSES, ETC. 



Master and 

 servant 

 driving 

 together. 



Servant en- 

 trusting the 

 reins to a 

 stranger. 



Extent of 

 servant's au- 

 thority. 

 Sudden emer- 

 gency. 



just cited to sections 3 and 7 of the Locomotives Act, 1865 

 (28 & 29 Vict. c. 83), the former of which requires the name 

 and address of the owner to be afhxed to a traction engine, 

 the contention being that the legislation was analogous. But 

 the Court declined to do so, Lord Esher, M.E.., (ot) saying, 

 " I do not think that the construction which has been placed 

 on the Hackney Carriages Acts is any authority for the con- 

 struction of this Act. Each Act must be construed according 

 to its own language. I see nothing in this Act to show that 

 the Legislature intended that, if a traction engine is let out 

 and negligently used by the person to whom it is let, the owner 

 of it shall be responsible to a person thereby injured." And 

 it was accordingly held that the owner of a traction engine, 

 to which his name and address were duly afiixed, was not 

 liable in respect of injuries occasioned to the plaintiff through 

 the negligent management of the engine whilst it was being 

 used upon a highway by a person to whom it had been let. 



Where a master and servant are together in a vehicle, 

 and an accident occurs from which an immediate injury 

 ensues, the master is liable, although the servant is driving, 

 and there is no evidence of any interference on the 

 master's part ; and even where the evidence on the part of 

 the defendant strictly negatives an interference, the mere 

 presence of the master with the servant will constitute him 

 a trespasser if the act of the servant amount to a trespass {n). 



So where a carriage and horses are hired, and the post- 

 boys are servants of the owner, and an accident ensues in 

 consequence of their negligence, the hirer, if he sit outside 

 and have a view of their proceedings, and do not endeavour 

 to stop their misconduct, is a co-trespasser with them (o). 



A master is liable in an action for damage resulting 

 from the negligence with which his cart has been driven, 

 although it should appear that his servant was not driving 

 at the time of the accident, but had entrusted the reins to 

 a stranger who was riding with him, and who was not in the 

 master's service {p). 



It is doubtful whether the servant of the proprietor of a 

 public vehicle has an implied authority, in cases of sudden 

 emergency, to appoint another person to act as servant on 

 his master's behalf [q), but it is clear that a servant 



(m) [1891] 2 Q. B. at p. 406. 



(«) Chandler v. Broughlon, 1 Cr. 

 &M. 29. 



(o) M'Lmighlin v. Pryor, 4 Scott, 

 N. E. 655 ; S. C, 4 M. & G. 48. 



(p) Booth Y. Mister, 7 C. & P. 66. 



[q) In Gwilliam v. Twist, [1893] 

 2 4. B. 84, Lord Esher said that 

 he was very much inclined to agree 

 ■with the view that the doctrine of 



