NEGLIGENT DRIVING BY A SERVANT. 



321 



Taking the 

 horse of 

 another. 



The course of the employment of the carman was, that, 

 with the horse and cart, he took out beer to his master's 

 customers, who was a brewer, and in returning to the 

 brewery, he called for empty casks wherever they would be 

 likely to be collected, for which he received from his master 

 a gratuity of Id. each. At the time of the accident the 

 carman had with him two casks, which he had picked up 

 on his return journey at a public-house which his master 

 supplied, and for which he afterwards received the customary 

 Id. : and it was held, that the carman had not re-entered 

 upon his ordinary duties at the time of the accident, and, 

 therefore, the master was not liable. 



Where a master sent his servant on an errand, and he 

 took and rode a horse belonging to another person without 

 his master's permission, and on his way back inflicted an 

 injury on the plaintiff, Mr. Justice Park said, " I cannot 

 bring myself to go the length of supposing that if a man 

 sends his servant on an errand without providing him with 

 a horse, and he meets a friend who has one, who permits 

 him to ride, and an injury happens in consequence, the 

 master is responsible for that act. If it were so, every 

 master might be ruined by acts done by his servant, without 

 his knowledge or authority (/). 



But where (m) the gengral manager of the defendant, a No express 

 horsedealer, had a horse and gig of his own, which he used ^aster'neces- 

 for the defendant's business as well as his own, and was sary. 

 allowed to keep them on the defendant's premises at the 

 defendant's expense ; and, on one occasion, the manager, on 

 putting the horse into the gig, told the defendant that he 

 was going to S. to collect a debt for him and afterwards to 

 see his own doctor ; and before he got to S. he drove 

 against and killed the plaintiff's horse ; it was held that 

 there was abundant evidence to make the defendant re- 

 sponsible, although he had not expressly requested the 

 manager to use the horse and gig on that occasion ; and 

 that it is not necessary in cases of this sort that there should 

 be any express request, as the jury may imply a request or 

 assent from the general nature of the servant's duty and 

 employment (n). And it was also held in the same 

 case (m) that the proper question to leave to the jury is, 

 whether at the time of the act complained of, the servant 

 was driving on his master's business and with his authority. 



(1) Goodman v. Kennel, 3 C. & P. 

 167. 



(m) Fatten v. Sea, 26 L. J., C. P. 



O. 



235. 



(«) See also Tarberville v. Stampe, 

 1 Lord Eaym. 264, per Holt, C.J. 



Y 



