Limpus v London General Company

in the exchequer chamber (Error from the Court of Exchequer ) limpus v london general omnibus company June 23, 1862.-The driver of the defendants' omnibus drove it across the road in front of a rival omnibus belonging to the plaintiff, which was thereby overturned. In an action against the defendants, the driver of their omnibus said that he pulled across the plaintiff's omnibus to prevent it passing him. The defendants had given instructions to their driver not to obstruct any omnibus The Judge directed the jury that a master was responsible for the reckless and improper conduct of his servant in the couise of the service: that if the jury believed that the defendants' driver, being dissatisfied and irritated with the plaintiff's driver, acted recklessly, wantonly, and improperly, but in the course of the service and employment, and doing that which he believed to be for the inteiest of the defendants, then they were responsible . that if the act of the defendants' driver, although a reckless driving on his part, was nevertheless an act done by him m the course of his service, and to do that which he thought best to suit the interest of his employers, and so to interfere with the trade and business of the other omnibus, the defendants were responsible that the instructions given to the defendants' driver were immaterial if he did not pursue them, but if the act of the defendants' servant was an act of his own, and in order to effect a purpose of his own, the defendants were not responsible Held, in the Exchequer Chamber, that the direction was right Wightman, J, clissentiente. [S C. 32 L. J. Ex 34, 9 Jur (N. S.) 333, 11 W. R 149, 7 L. T. 641. Distinguished, Pmtlton v. London and /Smith ff'estein Railway, 1867, L. R. 2 Q B. 540 Followed, fVmdv. London Genetal Omnibus Company, 1873, 21 W. R 358, 27 L. T 761: affirmed 42 L. J. C. P 265, 28 L. T. 850. Adopted, Biihsh Mutual Banking Company v. Chainwood Forest Railway, 1887, 18 Q. B D 717. Not applied, Haidmy v. Barkei, 1888, 37 W. K 79, Byrne v. Londonderry Tiamway Company, [1902] 2 Ir. R 457 , Culhmore v. Savage South Aft tea Company, [1903] 2 Ir. R. 589. Applied, Fany v. Gteat Nmthetn Railway of I-/eland, [1898] 2 Ir R. 352; GMan \ National Amalgamated Laborers' //iro/[1903] 2 K. B. 600; Smith v. Martin, [1911] 2 K. B. 782. Approved, Lloyd v. Grace, [1911] 2 K. B. 507 reversed [1912] A C. 716. Referred to, Wigan Elective case, 1870, 21 L. T. 123, Buins v. Poulsom, 1873, L R. 8 C. P. 570; Ruben v. Great Fingall Consolidated, [1906] A C. 441 ] Error on a bill of exceptions. The declaration stated that before and at the time of the committing of the grievances, &c., the plaintiff was lawfully possessed of an omnibus and harness, and of horses drawing the same, which were in a certain public highway. And the defendants were then possessed of another omnibus, and of horses drawing the same, which were then under the care, government and direction of a servant of the defendants, who waa then driving the same in and along the same highway. Nevertheless the defendants, by their said ser-[527]-vant, so carelessly, negligently, and improperly drove, governed, and directed their said omnibus and horses, that by and through the mere carelessness, negligence, and improper conduct of the defendants by their said servant in that behalf, the said horses and omnibus of the defendants ran against and came in collision with the horses and omnibus and Ex. Div xiv -32 994 LTMPUS V. LONDON GENERAL OMNIBUS COMPANY 1 H & C 528, harness of the plaintiff, and overturned and broke to pieces and damaged the said omnibus and harness of the plaintiff, and bruised, wounded, and injured one of the horses of the plaintiff. By means whereof the plaintiff was put to and necessarily incurred expense in and about endeavouring to cure his said horse and repairing the damage done to his said harness and omnibus, &c. Plea. Not guilty. Issue thereon. The eause was tried, before Martin, B., at the Middlesex Sittings after Michaelmas Term, 1861. The bill of exceptions set out the Judge's note of the evidence, which was (in substance) as follows:- The driver of the plaintiffs omnibus stated that on the 27th August he left the Bank for Hounslow, After he bad passed Sloane Street and was going towards Kensington, he stopped, about the barracks at Knightsbrldge, to take up two passengers. The defendants' omnibus then passed him, and got ahead, eighty to a hundred yards In'passmg, the driver eased his pace, and witness went on at his regular pace and overtook him. There was room in the road for five or six omnibuses. When witness got up to the defendants' omnibus, it was on the off side of the road rather than the near ; but there was plenty of room to pass. As witness was going to pass, the driver of the defendants' omnibus pulled across the road, and one of the hind wheels touched the shoulder of witness's near horse. Witness called out and tried to pull up, but could not. There was a bank there, and the defendants' driver forced the wit-[528]-ness's off horse on to the bank. The wheels of plaintiff's omnibus went on the bank and threw the omnibus over. On cross-examination the witness stated that the defendants' driver pulled his horses towards the witness's horses to prevent him passing. Another witness stated that the defendants' driver drove across the road purposely to prevent the progress of the plaintiff's omnibus, and that he considered it a reckless piece of driving. On behalf of the defendants, the driver of their omnibus stated that he passed the plaintiffs omnibus, when the driver pulled up on his near side to take up the two passengers. Afterwards the plaintiff's driver put his horses into a gallop to overtake the defendants' omnibus. The witness proceeded to say. " I pulled across him to keep him from passing me, to serve him as he had served me. His omnibus ran upon the bank and turned over on its side. I pulled across on purpose." The witness stated that he was furnished with the following card .- "London General Omnibus Company (Limited). " Attention is particularly directed to the following regulation of the Company...