The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1900-10-17
LAW LESSONS.
EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYER
sY AlstRr S eoilts. tn.


fective or dangerous Il may be without
rendering himself liahles Suppose ma
chine Is defective without his knowing
Il. is he responsible for the conse-
quences? Again. II he promises TO repair
a machine and does not. Is he liable for
an injury that afterward happenss What
Instructions must he give 20 minors be-
fore setting them at their task and
what safeguards or means 90 protection
must he use TO prevent accidents'
These and many other questions OF
similar nature VIII be answered In this
series or articles. The great army Of
employers and employed have n deep IN
terest in knowing what their legal re-
lations are.
No principle of law Is better known
than this. that no man Is responsible Tor
the acts Of others. No principle IS more
obvious or more In harmony with the
general sense OF Justice
Liability of . Master for the Acts of
HIS Servants.
Yet there is one great exception 10
this rule. master or employer IL liable
for the wrongful and negligent acts OF
his servant or employe which are done
while pursuing his masters business or
course. his master Is not liable for every
act. but only for those that are within the
scope OF his business For these. how
ever. he has long been hold liable. nor Is
there any escape for him. For example,
II coachman while driving his mas.
fer's horses should drive nesligently ann
run into another carriage ana in1ure y
his employer would be Obliged 20 pay
for the injury on the ground that ne
ought not to employ such eoachman.
The story IL told OF an eminent law
yer. Lord AbInger, that one day when
his coachman was driving his horses be-
came very wild and Abln2er feared nn.
pleasant consequences. 50 ne shouted
out 10 the coachman: Drive into some
thing cheap" Few, indeed, are those
who combine so much law and GOODNESS.
III an accident must happen. Tor which
he knew by the law he would be opnSeu
TO pay. he would rather pay small
sum than a large one, ana consequently
the order.
This doctrine Of the responsibility OF
the master for the acts OF his servant
is best known in the form OF y Latin
maxim. respondent superior. In the
Roman law II was applied 70 the head
OF family, because neither ms son nor
slave could be sued and made responssn'ss'
The paterfamiiias only could he sued.
hut with us all have equal personal
rights and liabilities. Nevertheless. THIS
rule taken from the Roman law y stlli
Tea. although the reason for ttr exist
ence does not exist either IN hnsnsn or
American society, Let us not forKet,
though. that the master IL Responsible
for those acts only that are done by his
servant within the scope Of his business.
when he departs from this he and he
only Is anSwerabe for HIS conduct. az
much as though he had no master
The Case of Prtestfy VS.. Fowler.
such was the rule OF law determining
the relation between master and servant
until 1897 when Lord Abnger decided
the case Of Priestly against Fowler,
which has caused far more suits and le-
gal discussion than any other case IN
the wide realm OF law. friestiy was a
servant OF Fowler. who was butcher.
Fowler. requested him e go with some
other servant. rrtestiy went aa he was
hidden. but the van was overloaded.
broke down and priestly was thrown on
and badly Injured 50 he sued his mas
ter and tried "a recover for the Injury
that had been caused through The nog-
iigcnce Of another servant In Fpwlcr'N
employ. Lord Ablnger. IN rendering bis
Judgment said that n master was 20
be held liable To his servant IN this ac-
ton the principle would extend % an
eartiase r. respopsitsie far she sufncscncy
~ hts carriage 70 HIS servant IN Il re-
aponslhie for tire negligence ~ HE coach
maker ar his harneeNuaker or hi~ COACH
,nar .The foatfnan therefore who ridea
behind the carriage may have an action
against his master Tor q fefert ~ She
carriage owing e the neellsenca % The
neAa arising from ihe negligence - the
harness maker. or fnr drunkenness, ncw-
lect or want 81 skiii IN the cnachmAn"
Lord Ahsuger then declared that " she
master was or. ought 80 Ne hrif liable
IN these cases trp rrfncfuia holding him
80 would extenH hts iiAbiiiff 20 nany 9th.
llahle 70 ire servant ~ fhs negligence
% the chs r7berrRaif Tar putting bin Into
n damn bed for that = to uphoisiefer
he wae made 80 fan down whne ssiesp
ard infuFe himself fer the negligence
- the cock n rot rrareriS rieenfaF ihe