Odger's English Common Law

BY A SERVANT. 493
civilly as well as criminally for any wrong done by himself or
his servants in the execution of the work contracted for." 1
A railway company employed a contractor to build a bridge to carry the
railway over a public road. In the course of building the bridge the
servants of the contractor negligently let fall a large stone, which struck and
killed a man using the road below. It was held that his widow had no>
cause of action against the railway company and that her remedy was
against the contractor, although by the express terms of the contract the
railway company had power to remove any of the contractor's workmen
whom it deemed incompetent ; for it was still the contractor who selected
and employed the workmen. 2
Again, where a builder had contracted to make certain alterations in »
club-house, he was held not liable for the negligence of a servant of the
gas-fitter whom he employed. 3 But where a servant is injured in con-
sequence of the* negligence of a man who had contracted with the servant's
master to do some repairs, he can recover damages, although there was no
privity of contract between him and the party by whose breach of duty the
injury was caused. 4
If the owner of a carriage hires horses of a stable-keeper, who provides a
driver through whose negligence an injury is done, the driver must in
general be considered as the servant of the stable-keeper or jobmaster.
But if there be special circumstances in the case which go to show an
assent, either express or implied, to the tortious act complained of by the
party hiring the horses, or to show that he had control over the servant
whose act caused the damage, he—and not the servant's master—will no
doubt be liable for the consequences. 5
The same principle applies where the carriage and horses are borrowed
for the day, 6 though a person hiring or. borrowing a carriage, and pro-
viding horses and servants, would be liable. 7
So, where the lessee of a ferry
hired of the defendant for the day a steamer and a crew to convey hi&
passengers across, the defendant was held liable for damage caused to a
passenger by the negligence of the crew. 8
(iii.) Lastly, the plaintiff must show that he has suffered
1 Per Maule, J., in Overton v. Freeman (1852), 11 C. B. at p. 873 ; and see
R. v. Williams (1884), 9 App. Cas. 418 ; Donovan v. Laing Wliarton Construction
Syndicate, [1893] 1 Q. B. 629 ; Kimber v. Gas Light and Coke Co., [1918] 1 K. B.439.
2 Seedie v. L. $ N. W. By. Co. (1849), i Exch. 244 ; and see Gayford v.
Nicholh (1854;, 9 Exch. 702.
8 Bapson v. Cubitt (1842), 9 M. & W. 710.
4 Parry v. Smith (1879), 4 C. P. D. 325 ; and see Pereival v. Hughes (1883), 8 App.
Cas. 447.
« Jones v. Scullard, [1898] 2 Q, B. 565.
6 As to the liability of a proprietor of hackney carriages plying for hire within
the metropolis, see Zing v. London Cab Co. (18S9), 23 Q. B. D. 281. The fact that a
man allows a carriage to go out with his name upon it is only primd facie evidence of his
liability for the negligence of any person driving it : Smith v. Bailey, [1891]
2 Q. B. 403.
' Croft v. Alison (1833), 4 B. & Aid. 590.
8 Dalyell v. Tyrer (1858). E. B. &E. 899 ; and see Schusters. MeKeUar (1857) r
7 E. & B. 704.