Page images


No LIABILITY. spector of police, and superinten- Lyyo v. Newbold (1854), 9 Ex. dentofline, charged with travelling 302; 2 C. L. 449 ; 23 L. J. Ex. without a ticket with intent to de- 108. (Plaintiff agreed to carry fraud. “We think it a reasonable defendant's goods for her in his inference that, in the conduct of cart ; defendant's servant, without their business, the company have defendant's authority,

allowed on the spot officers with authority plaintiff to ride on the cart ; cart to determnine, without the delay at- broke down, and the plaintiff intending on convening the directors, jured.) whether the servants of the com- Murphy v. Caralli (1864), 3 H. pany shall or shall not, on the & C. 462. (Bales of cotton stored company's behalf, apprehend a insecurely in a warehouse by person accused of this offence.") porters in the defendant's employ

Seymour v. Greenwood (1861), ment under the superintendence 6 H. & N. 359, and 7 H. & N. of J., the warehouse-keeper em355 ; 8 Jur. N. S. 24; 30 L. J. ployed by the owner of warehouse; Ex. 189 and 327 ; 9 W. R. 785 ; defendant not liable, the bales 4 L. T. N. S. 833. (Defendant having been stowed under J.'s liable for the act of his servant, a directions.) guard of an omnibus, in forcibly William v. Jones (1865), 33 L. removing passenger whom he be- J. Ex. 297 ; 3 H. & C. 602. (See lieved to be drunk. “ It is not con

P. 287.) venient for the master personally to Poulton v. London and Southconduct the omnibus, and he puts Western Ry. Co. (1867), L. R. 2 the guard in his place ; therefore if Q. B. 534. (See p. 290.) the guard forms a wrong judgment Storey v. Ashton (1869), I. R. 4 the master is responsible.”)

Q. B. 476 ; 38 L. J. Q. B. 223; Limpus v. General Omnibus Co., 17 W. R. 727; 10 B. & S. 337. (1862), 3 H. &C. 526. (See p. 280.) (A carman, sent with horse and

Page v. Defries (1866), 7 B. & S. cart by his employer, a wine137. (Defendants sent their barge merchant, to deliver wine and under management of lighterman bring back empty bottles ; while to a wharf to bring it alongside. returning, after business hours, he At suggestion of foreman of wharf, drove out of his way on business, the lighterman moved away not his master's; while he was so from the wharf plaintiff's barge driving, the plaintiff was run over.) and fastened it to a pile in the Edwards London and Northriver. The plaintiff's barge settled Western Ry. Co. (May, 1870), L. on a projection in bed of river and R. 5 C. P. 445 ; 39 L. J. C. P. was injured.)

241 ; 22 L. T. 656 ; 18 W. R. Lunt v. London and North- 834. (See p. 287.) Western Ry. Co. (1866), L. R. 1 Q. Walker v. South Eastern Ry. Co. B. 277; 35 L. J. Q. B. 105. (Gate- (1870), L. R. 5 C. P. 640 ; 39 L. keeper inviting plaintiff to pass J. C. P. 346 ; 23 L. T. 14; 18 over a railway crossing.)

W. R. 1032. (See p. 287.). Whartman v. Pearson (1868), L. Allen v. London and Great R. 3 C. P. 422. (Defendant, a Western Ry. Co. (1870), L. R. 6 contractor, employed men and Q. B. 65 ; 40 L. J. Q. B.55 ; 23 L. horses ; the men were allowed an T. 612; 19 W. R. 127. (See hour for dinner, but not allowed

p. 287.) to leave the horses. One of the Foreman v. Mayor of Canterbury men left his horse unattended ; it (1871), L. R. 6 Q. B. 214. (Deran away; held that it fendants liable for negligence of

[ocr errors]


415 ;


No LIABILITY. properly left to the jury to say servants employed in repairing whether driver was acting within road.) scope of his employment, and that Cormick v. Digby (1876), 9 Irish they were justified in finding that C. L. 557. (Defendant's steward he was.)

and herd got leave to go to a Van Den Enynde v. Ulster Ry. neighbouring town, on business of Co. (1871), 5 Ir. C. L. 6 and his own, with his master's hore 328. °(A clerk of the defendants, and cart'; it was afterwards agreed while issuing tickets, erroneously that he should bring home meat thought he had seen a ticket in for the defendant; he drove the the plaintiff's hand; charged him cart so negligently as to injure the with having stolen a ticket; and plaintiff ; Court refused to hold, detained him ; defendants liable.) as matter of law, defendant liable.

Moore v. Metropolitan Ry. Co. Raymer v. Mitchell (1877), L. R. 2 (1872), L. R. 8 Q. B. 36 ; 42 L. J. C. P. D. 357. (Defendant's carman, Q. B. 23; 27 L. T. 579 ; 21 W. R. without his master's permission, 145. (See p. 288.)

took horse and cart out of his Bayleyv. Manchester and Stafford- master's stable to deliver a child's shire Ry. Co. (1872), L. R. 7 C. P. coffin at a relative's house ; he

41 L. J.C. P. 278. (Plaintiff picked up two or three barrels at took his seat in defendants' train public houses which defendant

for Macclestield ; a porter of the supplied. He drove against defendants, supposing he was in plaintiff's cart, and injured it. the wrong train, violently pulled Bank of New South Wales v. him out and injured him.) Owston (1879), L. R. 4 Ap. 270.

Ward v. General Omnibus Co. (Action for malicious prosecution (1873), 42 L. J. C. P. 265 ; 28 L. against a bank ; prosecution instiT. 850 ; affirmed, 27 L. T. 761 ; tuted by bank manager; no im21 W. R. 358. (Blow struck by plied authority from his position to driver of defendants' omnibus at institute prosecutions.) driver of another omnibus ; pas

Bolingbrooke v. Local Board, senger in former injured; Court Swindon (1874), L. R. 9 C. P.575; refused to set aside verdict for 43 L. J. Č. P. 575; 3 L. T. 723 ; plaintiff on the ground that there 23 W. R. 47. (See p. 282.) was evidence of negligence in the Stevens v. Woodward (1881), course of employment.)

L. R. 6 Q. B. D. 318. (See p. 286.) Burns v. Poulsom (1873), L. R. 8 C. P. 563; 42 L. J. C. P. 302 ; 29 L. T. 329; 22 W. R. 20. (Defendant, a stevedore, employed to ship rails, had a foreman, whose duty it was to carry the rails to the ship after the carnian had brought them to the quay, and unloaded them. The foreman voluntarily got into the cart, and negligently unloaded some rails whereby the plaintiff was injured. Evidence for a jury that foreman was acting within scope of his duty so as to make stevedore liable. Brett, J., dissenting.)

Tebbutt v. Bristol Ry.Co.(1870), L.


LIABILITY. R. 6 Q. B. 73 ; 40 L. J. Q. B. 78; 23 L. T. 772 ; 19 W. R. 383. (The stations of defendants and two other railway companies were adjoining, and the passengers of the different companies passed from one to the other, the whole area being used in common. The plaintiff, while on the platform of the defendants on his way from the terminus of one of the companies to the booking office of another, was injured by the negligence of a porter of the defendants. Defendants liable, although plaintiff not a passenger of the defendants.)

Mackay v. Commercial Bank of New Brunswick (1874), L. R. 5 P. C. 394. (Cashier of a bank who acted as manager, fraudulently induced plaintiff to accept certain bills; the defendants obtained the benefit of the bills.).

Venables v. Smith (1877), L. R. 2 Q. B. D. 279; 46 L. J.Q. B. 470; 36 L.T. 509 ; 25 W. R. 384. (Cabowner liable for negligence of driver who, on bis return to owner's mews, drove a little way from them to purchase snuff for himself.)

Edwards v. Midland Ry. Co. (1880), L. R. 6 Q. B. D. 287. (Action for malicious prosecution lies against a company.)





SCOTCH CASES. Linwood v. Hathorn (1817), 19 F. Waldie v. Duke of Roxburgh C. 327 ; I. S. App. 20. (The ser- (1822), 1 S. 367. (R. obtained vants of defendant cut down a tree an interdict against W. from deepenclose to a public road ; it fell upon ing part of the river Tweed ; W.'s and killed a man ; the defendant servant, in his master's absence, not liable,—he being at the time and against his express orders, comabsent, and having given mitted a breach of the interdict ; authority to cut the tree, nor W. not responsible.) apparently any authority to cut trees in that locality.)

Baird v. Graham (1852), 14 D. 615. (A master sent his servant with glandered horse to a fair at such a distance that the servant was obliged to put up for the night ; action by owner of stable for loss of horses




Scotch Cases. and cattle which defendant's horse had infected with glanders.)

Faulds v. Townsend (1861), 23 D. 437; 33 Jur. 224. (A manufacturing chemist, whose business consisted partly in boiling down the carcases of horses for manure, liable in the full value of a stolen horse, which had been purchased by his servant and used for the above purpose.)

Gregory v. Hill (1869), 8 R. 282. (Defendant employed foreman and masons to build a house, and paid them wages; he also entered into a contract with a carpenter for carpenter's work; heldi that the defendant was liable for injuries to carpenter by the negligence of the masons.)



AMERICAN Cases. Philadelphia and Reading Ry. Wright v. Wilcox (1838), 19 Co. v. Derby (1852), 14 How. 468. Wend. 343. (Master not liable (Defendants liable for collision

when a servant wilfully threw a lad caused by servants disobeying an off a waggon and drove over him.) express order.)

Mali v. Lord (1868), 39 N. Y. Carman v. Mayor of New York 381. (Defendant not liable for (1862), 14 Abb. 301. (Owner of the act of his superintendent in land employed workmen to cut arresting and searching the trees on his own land without plaintiff, on a charge of stealing employing a competent superin- goods from the defendant.) tendent, or instructing them as to Fraser v. Freeman (1871), 43 N. the boundaries; defendant liable Y. 566. Defendant, under claim for trees of plaintiff which his of right, endeavoured to force his workmen ignorantly cut down and way, with the aid of his servant, removed.)

into premises of plaintiff's intesAlthorf v. Wolf (1860), 8 Sm. tate; servant shot the latter in 355. (See page 272.)

the struggle ; defendant not liable, Chapman v. New York Central in the absence of evidence that Ry. Co. (1865). (Defendants liable shot was fired with assent or by for torts of servants when drunk.) direction of defendant.)

Lannen v. Albany Gas Light Co. (1871), 44 N. Y. 459. (Defendants, informed that gas was escaping in the cellar of a house, sent servant to ascertain where the leak was ; the servant lighted a match for this purpose, and an explosion took place ; defendants liable.)

Wolfev. Mersereau (1859), 4 Duer



AMERICAN CASES. 473. (No defence that defendant's servant wilfully drove against plaintiff's waggon, if he did so in order to avoid greater peril, which it was the defendant's interest to avoid.)

Railroad Co. v. Hanning (1872), 19 Wal. 649. (Contractor agreed to furnish the materials and labour for building a wharf ; to do the work under the direction and supervision of the railway company's engineer and to his satisfaction ; the company liable for the negligence of the contractor or his servants.)

« EelmineJätka »