The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1898-10-29

thereof and the said Kondo servant Of defendant
then employed by the defendant the said
and wagon and driving the with the
said business and the purpose assisting defendant
his in carrying the Upon trial Of the
in the District Court found that defendant
time of the collision plaintiff Konda carry
ing the busneSsa fruit store-of the of P. G.
Camanos, deceased, administrator thereof Kondo
in the employment Of defendant carry
ing the said and held defendant was
liable IN his individual capacity and for gave ud
forh him.
The question raised by the appeal whether under the
the defendant is personally liable The defendant claims
he is liable because driver not defendants
personal but of the defendant his represen
ative capacity The defendants their
that defendant not carrying the business trader
but merely preserve It's good will until such time could
be Sold under the direction and by the authority Of the probate
We do find this position supported by the psadngs
the proofs adduced below This complete the
contention Of defendants counsel that administrator is only
responsible damages injuries caused either directly by
himself indirectly by his negligence Defendant
winding his ntestaes Kondo employed by the
defendant and the alleged respass committed by Kondo
while driving the wagon the scope of his employment In the
fruit business. Defendant his According
well settled law disputed by defendant the is
responsible third persons for injuries through the negligence
servant acting scope of his employment
that both skiul and careful So far third
concerned Kondo the servant of defendant
In Plnpton Richards ct al erectors 81 Me 115, the
defendants sued of Gardner and attach
made Of the goods and of the testaor The
for damages caused by the defendants raising dam
whereby plaintiffs mill flowed. The dam and
the land which situated had under the WILL become
vested in the and others The court held that 1.-The
action practically against the estate OF Gardner tor II the
responsible. 1t against them for wrongful acts OF
their 1t is for their wrong dong But their
wrong dones were part of
their duty commit epa upon the rights of others Ii they
did they would be liable individuals 1t would be nonstrous
hold that Judgment and execution should issue against the
estate of their testaor which they could have
authority by virtue Of their dictatorship to commit IT an eN-
ec,tor commits trespas his individual and personal
the of his testaor He Is
to settle the estae destroy it, An administrator such
the responsibility third parties for the acts of
his upon all masters employers of servants
Whether the employs them in the business of has dece
dent his business makes difference The admins
degree of responsibility the ultimate benecae
through the probate winding the estate his and
disposition of the of the decedent upon other pnci
pies of law which necessary be discussed here for
questions administrators liability those interested
performance of his ducary duties the
involved here.
The appeal sustained and the Judgment appealed from
versed The should be proceeded with against defendant
as an individual upon its merits.
H. T. De Bolt for plaintiff
r. and John Willard for defendant
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE HAWAIIAN