This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1912 edition. Excerpt: ... is a necessary or usual incident to the actually authorized act or course of action, the master is liable to the injured third party for its commission. Thus, a salesman left in charge of a store has implied authority to cause the arrest of a shopper suspected of theft. Where such a salesman, erroneously ...
Read More
This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1912 edition. Excerpt: ... is a necessary or usual incident to the actually authorized act or course of action, the master is liable to the injured third party for its commission. Thus, a salesman left in charge of a store has implied authority to cause the arrest of a shopper suspected of theft. Where such a salesman, erroneously thinking T had stolen some goods, had her arrested, his master was held liable for the tort (3). 91. Unauthorized torts committed in the course of the servant's employment and in intended furtherance of the master's business. Even if the act is not authorized, still if the servant did it in the course of his employment and in intended furtherance of the master's business, the master is liable. But the servant must be acting in the work for which the master hired him. If a gardener without authority takes his master's chauffeur's place, and through his incompetence a third party is injured, the master is not liable. The act was not done in the course of the work for which the gardener was employed (4). And the act must be with an eye to the master's business. If its sole object is the benefit of the servant himself, then (with one exception, to be noted later) the master is not liable. Thus if S, M's delivery driver, while he is using the horses to take home a personal friend of his own, injures T, M is not liable (5). S was not acting with an eye to his master's business, even though engaged in the work for which he was hired. But if both these tests con (3) Staples v. Schmidt, 18 R. L 224. (4) See Hanson v. Waller, (1901) 1 K. B. 390. (6) Mitchell v. CrasBweiler. 13 C. B. 237. cur--if the act was done in the course of the servant's employment and with an eye to the master's benefit--however negligently done or however mistakenly as to...
Read Less
