Apprentices, Master's Liability for Servant's Torts (Paperback)

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1913 edition. Excerpt: ... of the iron, "Pd 'V l;fend_ Jury have found would, If the aha," ants had been allowed to use them, "V prevented the iniury 1'-0 tllelr Prg'incd' For the injury to the 5011 "1 mm under such circumstances, the li time was liable. The goods were at 119 owed in the plaintifl"s custody, and 9 few a duty to the defendants tofusctheir sonable and ordinary cafe 1: d the t fun The defendants B rail-gohtc to i provide additional security acts of the master or mariners, to the full extent of the damage there by occasioned. But special statutes limiting their liability have been enacted in England and the United States.' There is a conflict of authority with regard to the question whether a person who furnishes messengers to the public for hire is a common carrier in respect of the parcels intrusted to them.' against injury to the property from the storm, and their servants were lawfully on the pier for the purpose of protecting it. The interference of tie plaintiff's servants in taking the tarpaulin was wrongful, but the injury to the iron in consequence thereof was not wilful, in the sense that they designed it; nor, in taking the tarpaulin, were they pursuing any objects of their own, but they were at the time engaged in their master's business, and although he did not authorize the wrong committed, it was done in the course of their employment for him, and for his benefit; and for their act the master is, we think, within the authorities, chargeable." In Kennedy v. Dodge (1867) 1 Ben. 311, Fed. Cas. No. 7,701, the liability of shipowners for the negligence of the master of the ship in overloading a wharf with the goods of the consignee (defendant) was affirmed on the ground that the...