hints 
However, when suit is brought against an employee for acts done in 
the discharge of his governmental duty it is competent for the Department 
as a matter of sound policy to request that the employee's defense be 
undertaken by the Department of Justice. This is upon the ground that 
employees who are not negligent or whose liability is doubtful ought to be 
afforded reasonable means of protection and defense against unjustifiable 
claims against them resulting from the discharge of their official duties. 
Likewise, it would seem expedient that employees in the performance of 
official duties be cautioned and instructed that their public employment 
does not constitute a license or a justification for the commission of 
illegal acts which are injurious to the person or the property of another. 
And where it appears that there is gross or wilful negligence on the part 
of an employee, in disobedience to such instructions and in disregard of 
his ordinary legal obligation to others, he should be made to bear in 
full the consequences of his wrongful acts and be subjected to such 
disciplinary action by the Department as the case might warrant. 
With regard to the responsibility of the driver's supervisor who 
may have specifically instructed him as to his work, assuming that such 
superior does not actually participate in the doing of the unlawful act, 
there is no liability whatsoever and this is true whether or not the driver 
is negligent or not. Obviously, if the immediate supervisor of the 
employee is not liable, the superiors of the supervisor themselves, could ~ 
not be liable. The conclusion is substantially sustained by the Supreme 
Court in the case of Robertson v. Sichel, 127 U. S. 507, 515, 516, where 
it is stated: 
* * A public officer or agent is not responsible for 
the misfeasances or positive wrongs, or for the nonfeas-— 
ances, or negligences, or omissions of duty, of the sub- 
agents or servants or other persons properly employed by 
Or under him, in the discharge of his official duties. 
Story on Agency, Sec. 319. | 
2. and 3. There is no distinction between a rented automobile 
and one owned by an employee and used on a mileage basis, and one owned 
by the Government. Therefore, the questions discussed under one above 
are equally applicable to 2 and 3. 
