318 



NEGLIGENCE IN THE USE OF HORSES, ETC. 



Guard of 

 omnibus 

 using undue 

 violence to a 

 passenger. 



Servant re- 

 moving an 

 obstruction. 



Servant act- 

 ing impro- 

 perly. 



Making a de- 

 tour for bis 

 own purposes. 



had jumped on the omnibus step to get his number, it is a 

 question for the jury whether the blow was struck by the 

 driver in private spite, or in supposed furtherance of his 

 employer's interests {t). 



It was held by the Exchequer Chamber in the case of 

 Seymour v. Greenwood (u) that the master was liable, where 

 the guard of an omnibus belonging to him, in removing 

 therefrom a passenger, whom he deemed to be drunk, 

 dragged him out with undue violence, and threw him upon 

 the ground, whereby he was seriously injured ; for the 

 master, by giving the guard authority to remove offensive 

 passengers, necessarily gives him authority to determine 

 whether any passenger had misconducted himself. And 

 inasmuch as the master puts the guard in his place because 

 it is not convenient for him personally to conduct the 

 omnibus, if the guard forms a wrong judgment, the master 

 is responsible (x). 



But where a van was standing at the door of the plaintiflF, 

 from which the plaintiff's goods were being unladen, and 

 the plaintiff's gig was standing behind the van : and the 

 defendant's coachman drove her carriage up, and there not 

 being room for the carriage to pass, the coachman got off his 

 box and laid hold of the van horse's head ; and this caused 

 the van to move, and thereby a packing-case fell out of the 

 van and broke the shafts of the gig ; it was held, with the 

 assent of the Barons sitting in the Exchequer Chamber, 

 that the defendant was not liable, as the coachman was not 

 acting in the employ of his mistress, that is, within the 

 scope of his employment, at the time this matter occurred {y). 



If a servant does what his master employs him to do in 

 a negligent, improper, or round-about way, and damage is 

 done, his master is liable (s). 



If a servant driving his master's cart, on his master's 

 business, make a detour from the direct road for some pur- 

 pose of his own, his master will be answerable in damages 

 for any injury occasioned by his careless driving while so 

 out of his road (a). Because wherever the master has 

 intrusted the servant with the control of the carriage, it is 



(t) Ward V. General Omnibus Co., 

 42 L. J., C. P. 265 ; 28 L. T., N. S. 

 850 — Ex. Cb., affirming tbe decision 

 of C. P., 27 L. T.,N. S. 761; 21 

 W. E. 358. 



(u) Set/moury. Orei 

 N. 355. 



(x) Per Williams, J"., 



', 7 H. & 



Seymour v. 



Greemiood, 7 H. & N. 355. 



(y) Lamb v. Lady Elizabeth Falk, 

 9 C. & P. 629. 



{z) See per Cresswell, J., Mitchell 

 V. Crasswellcr, 22 L. J., C. P. 104. 



(a) Joel V. Morrison, 6 C. & P. 

 501. 



