Page images
PDF
EPUB

LIABILITY.

spector of police, and superintendent of line, charged with travelling without a ticket with intent to defraud. "We think it a reasonable inference that, in the conduct of their business, the company have on the spot officers with authority to determine, without the delay attending on convening the directors, whether the servants of the company shall or shall not, on the company's behalf, apprehend a person accused of this offence.")

Seymour v. Greenwood (1861), 6 H. & N. 359, and 7 H. & N. 355; 8 Jur. N. S. 24; 30 L. J. Ex. 189 and 327; 9 W. R. 785; 4 L. T. N. S. 833. (Defendant liable for the act of his servant, a guard of an omnibus, in forcibly removing passenger whom he believed to be drunk. "It is not convenient for the master personally to conduct the omnibus, and he puts the guard in his place; therefore if the guard forms a wrong judgment the master is responsible.")

Limpus v. General Omnibus Co., (1862), 3 H. & C. 526. (See p. 280.) Page v. Defries (1866), 7 B. & S. 137. (Defendants sent their barge under management of lighterman to a wharf to bring it alongside. At suggestion of foreman of wharf, the lighterman moved away from the wharf plaintiff's barge and fastened it to a pile in the river. The plaintiff's barge settled on a projection in bed of river and was injured.)

Lunt v. London and NorthWestern Ry. Co. (1866), L. R. 1 Q. B. 277; 35 L. J. Q. B. 105. (Gatekeeper inviting plaintiff to pass over a railway crossing.)

Whartman v. Pearson (1868), L. R. 3 C. P. 422. (Defendant, a contractor, employed men and horses; the men were allowed an hour for dinner, but not allowed to leave the horses. One of the men left his horse unattended; it ran away; held that it was

NO LIABILITY.

Lygo v. Newbold (1854), 9 Ex. 302; 2 C. L. 449; 23 L. J. Ex. 108. (Plaintiff agreed to carry defendant's goods for her in his cart; defendant's servant, without defendant's authority, allowed plaintiff to ride on the cart; cart broke down, and the plaintiff injured.)

Murphy v. Caralli (1864), 3 H. & C. 462. (Bales of cotton stored insecurely in a warehouse by porters in the defendant's employment under the superintendence of J., the warehouse-keeper em-* ployed by the owner of warehouse; defendant not liable, the bales having been stowed under J.'s directions.)

William v. Jones (1865), 33 L. J. Ex. 297; 3 H. & C. 602. (See p. 287.)

Poulton v. London and SouthWestern Ry. Co. (1867), L. R. 2 Q. B. 534. (See p. 290.)

Storey v. Ashton (1869), L. R. 4 Q. B. 476; 38 L. J. Q. B. 223; 17 W. R. 727; 10 B. & S. 337. (A carman, sent with horse and cart by his employer, a winemerchant, to deliver wine and bring back empty bottles; while returning, after business hours, he drove out of his way on business, not his master's; while he was so driving, the plaintiff was run over.)

Edwards v. London and NorthWestern Ry. Co. (May, 1870), L. R. 5 C. P. 445; 39 L. J. C. P. 241; 22 L. T. 656; 18 W. R. 834. (See p. 287.)

Walker v. South Eastern Ry. Co. (1870), L. R. 5 C. P. 640; 39 L. J. C. P. 346; 23 L. T. 14; 18 W. R. 1032. (See p. 287.)

Allen v. London and Great Western Ry. Co. (1870), L. R. 6 Q. B. 65; 40 L. J. Q. B. 55; 23 L. T. 612; 19 W. R. 127. (See p. 287.)

Foreman v. Mayor of Canterbury (1871), L. R. 6 Q. B. 214. (Defendants liable for negligence of

LIABILITY.

properly left to the jury to say whether driver was acting within scope of his employment, and that they were justified in finding that he was.)

Van Den Enynde v. Ulster Ry. Co. (1871), 5 Ir. C. L. 6 and 328. (A clerk of the defendants, while issuing tickets, erroneously thought he had seen a ticket in the plaintiff's hand; charged him with having stolen a ticket; and detained him; defendants liable.)

Moore v. Metropolitan Ry. Co. (1872), L. R. 8 Q. B. 36; 42 L. J. Q. B. 23; 27 L. T. 579; 21 W. R. 145. (See p. 288.)

Bayley v. Manchester and Staffordshire Ry. Co. (1872), L. R. 7 C. P. 415; 41 L. J. C. P. 278. (Plaintiff took his seat in defendants' train for Macclesfield; a porter of the defendants, supposing he was in the wrong train, violently pulled him out and injured him.)

Ward v. General Omnibus Co. (1873), 42 L. J. C. P. 265; 28 L. T. 850; affirmed, 27 L. T. 761; 21 W. R. 358. (Blow struck by driver of defendants' omnibus at driver of another omnibus; passenger in former injured; Court refused to set aside verdict for plaintiff on the ground that there was evidence of negligence in the course of employment.)

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 carman 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.

NO LIABILITY. servants employed in repairing road.)

Cormick v. Digby (1876), 9 Irish C. L. 557. (Defendant's steward and herd got leave to go to a neighbouring town, on business of his own, with his master's horse and cart; it was afterwards agreed that he should bring home meat for the defendant; he drove the cart so negligently as to injure the plaintiff; Court refused to hold, as matter of law, defendant liable.

Rayner v. Mitchell (1877), L. R. 2 C. P. D. 357. (Defendant's carman, without his master's permission, took horse and cart out of his master's stable to deliver a child's coffin at a relative's house; he picked up two or three barrels at public-houses which defendant supplied. He drove against plaintiff's cart, and injured it.

Bank of New South Wales v. Owston (1879), L. R. 4 Ap. 270. (Action for malicious prosecution against a bank; prosecution instituted by bank manager; no implied authority from his position to institute prosecutions.)

Bolingbrooke v. Local Board, Swindon (1874), L. R. 9 C. P. 575; 43 L. J. C. P. 575; 3 L. T. 723; 23 W. R. 47. (See p. 282.)

Stevens v. Woodward (1881), L. R. 6 Q. B. D. 318. (See p. 286.)

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 his 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. C. 327; I. S. App. 20. (The servants of defendant cut down a tree close to a public road; it fell upon and killed a man; the defendant not liable, he being at the time absent, and having given no authority to cut the tree, nor apparently any authority to cut trees in that locality.)

Baird v. Graham (1852), 14D. 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

NO LIABILITY.

SCOTCH CASES.

Waldie v. Duke of Roxburgh (1822), 1 S. 367. (R. obtained an interdict against W. from deepening part of the river Tweed; W.'s servant, in his master's absence, and against his express orders, committed a breach of the interdict; W. not responsible.)

NO LIABILITY

LIABILITY.

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; held that the defendant was liable for injuries to carpenter by the negligence of the masons.)

AMERICAN CASES. Philadelphia and Reading Ry. Co. v. Derby (1852), 14 How. 468. (Defendants liable for collision caused by servants disobeying an express order.)

Carman v. Mayor of New York (1862), 14 Abb. 301. (Owner of land employed workmen to cut trees on his own land without employing a competent superintendent, or instructing them as to the boundaries; defendant liable for trees of plaintiff which his workmen ignorantly cut down and removed.)

Althorf v. Wolf (1860), 8 Sm. 355. (See page 272.)

Chapman v. New York Central Ry. Co. (1865). (Defendants liable for torts of servants when drunk.)

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 Ďuer

AMERICAN CASES.

Wright v. Wilcox (1838), 19 Wend. 343. (Master not liable when a servant wilfully threw a lad off a waggon and drove over him.)

Mali v. Lord (1868), 39 N. Y. 381. (Defendant not liable for the act of his superintendent in arresting and searching the plaintiff, on a charge of stealing goods from the defendant.)

Fraser v. Freeman (1871), 43 N. Y. 566. Defendant, under claim of right, endeavoured to force his way, with the aid of his servant, into premises of plaintiff's intestate; servant shot the latter in the struggle; defendant not liable, in the absence of evidence that shot was fired with assent or by direction of defendant.)

LIABILITY.

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.)

NO LIABILITY.

« PreviousContinue »