322 



NEGLIGENCE IN THE USE OF HORSES, ETC. 



Master's 

 name on the 

 cart. 



Giving an 

 address. 



liability of 

 master and 

 servant re- 

 spectively. 



Negligence 

 of tellow- 

 servant. 



According to the language used in the report of the case 

 of Stables v. Eki/ (o), it has been held that if, in an action 

 for negligent driving, it appears that the defendant has held 

 himself out to the world as the owner of a cart by suffering 

 his name to remain painted on it, and over the door of the 

 house of business to which it belongs, an action is maintain- 

 able against him in respect of the negligence of the driver, 

 although it is proved that he had for some days ceased to be 

 the owner of the cart, or to be concerned in the business. 

 But this case was recently commented on and disapproved 

 of in the Court of Appeal (p), Lord Esher, M.E., remarking 

 that it must either be misreported or wrong, and that the 

 utmost effect that can be given to the decision is that under 

 such circumstances there would be priiiid facie evidence of 

 liability, which might be met, however, by showing the 

 truth of the matter ((/), and in this opinion Bowen and 

 Kay, L.JJ., concurred. 



Where a carriage strikes against another, and a person 

 who sees the transaction demands the address of the owner, 

 the address given by a person in the carriage is admissible 

 in evidence ; but a statement that any damages done will 

 be paid for is not so (r). 



If a servant, in the course of his master's employ, drives 

 over any person and does a wilful injury (described by 

 Martin, B., as an act of his own, and in order to effect a 

 purpose of his own (s), the servant, and not the master, is 

 liable ; if the servant, by his negligent driving, in the course 

 of his employment, causes an injury, the master is liable ; 

 if the master himself is driving, or though not actually 

 driving is sanctioning the conduct of his servant, he is liable 

 whether the damage be the effect of negligence or of a 

 wilful act done or sanctioned by him {t). 



It is a well-established rule of law that a servant cannot 

 ordinarily sue his master for an injury sustained through 

 the negligence of a fellow-servant {u). And a stranger 



(o) Stalks V. Bleij, 1 C. & P. 614. 



Ip) Smith V. Bailei/, [1891] 2 

 Q. B. 403; 60 L. J., Q. B. 779. 



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



(r) Beamon v. EUiee, 4 C. & P. 

 586. 



(5) Limpus V. General Omnibus 

 Co., ante, p. 311. 



{t) See per Parke, B., Gordon v. 

 Solt, i Ex. 366; 18 L. J., Ex. 

 433. 



(m) Tarrant v. TTeib, 25 L. J"., 

 C. P. 261 ; JFaller v. South Eastern 

 Sail Co., 32 L. J., Ex. 205; Sail 

 Y.Johnson, 13 W. E. 411; Wiggett 

 V. Fox, 25 L. J., Ex. 188. The law- 

 relating to the liability of employers 

 to make compensation for injuries 

 suffered by workmen in their service 

 is extended and regulated by the 

 Employers' Liability Act, 1880 (43 & 

 44 Vict. i;. 42) ; but that act does 



