NEGLIGENT DRIVING BY A SERVANT. 319 



no answer that the servant acted improperly in the manage- 

 ment of it ; but the master in such case will be liable, because 

 he has put it in the servant's power to mismanage the 

 carriage by entrusting him with it. And this was so held 

 by Mr. Justice Erskine, where a servant, having set his 

 master down in Stamford Street, was directed by him to 

 put up in Castle Street, Leicester Square ; but in so doing, 

 he went to deliver a parcel of his own in Old Street Eoad, 

 and in returning along it he drove against an old woman 

 and injured her (b). 



So, in Whatman v. Pearson (c), the defendant, a contractor 

 under a district board, was engaged in constructing a 

 sewer, and employed men with horses and carts. The men 

 so employed were allowed an hour for dinner, but were not 

 permitted to go home to dine, or leave their horses and 

 carts. One of the men went home, about a quarter of a 

 mile out of the direct line of his work to his dinner, and 

 left his horse unattended in the street before his door. 

 The horse ran away and damaged certain railings belonging 

 to the plaintiff; and it was held that it was properly left to 

 the jury to say whether the driver was acting within the 

 scope of his employment, and that they were justified in 

 finding that he was. 



But where a servant is acting, and knows that he is Servant act- 

 acting, contrary to his trust, and to his master's employ- J°o, ^^^^'^I^ 

 ment, the master is not liable for any damage which may 

 be done by him {d}. 



Thus if a servant without his master's leave or knowledge Taking his 

 take his cart or carriage when it is not wanted, and drive ^fthouUeavr 

 it about for his own purposes, the master is not answerable 

 for any injury he may do, because he has not in such case 

 entrusted him with the cart or carriage (e). So where it was 

 the duty of the defendant's carman, after having delivered 

 his master's goods for the day, to return to the house, 

 get the key of the stable, and put up his horse and cart in 

 a mews in an adjoining street ; on his return one evening 

 he got the key, and instead of going to the mews, and 

 without the defendant's leave, he drove a fellow-servant in 

 an opposite direction, and on his way back injured the 



(h) Sleath v. Wilson, 9 C. & P. [d) See per Cresswell, J., Mitchell 



608. v. Grassweller, 22 L. J., C. P. 104. 



(c) L. R., 3 C. P. 422; and see (e) Joel v. Morrison, 6 C. & P. 



^«rwp. PoM&OK, L. E., 8 C. P. 563 ; 501; Sleath v. Wilson, 9 C. & P. 



42 L. J., C. P. 302. 608. 



