Responsibility to Third Persons for Acts of Servants.
Wrongful act of servant.—A master is responsible for the wrongful acts or omissions of his servant when acting within the scope of his employment and when not engaged on some purpose of his own. Thus, if a coachman while driving his master's carriage, in pursuance of his ordinary duties, negligently drives into some one else's carriage, his master will be liable; but if the coachman takes his master's carriage out for his own purposes, the master will not be liable for any damage done by the coachman, even if the latter, by way of excuse, has called at certain places in connexion with the master's business. That the servant was acting in his or her master's interests is immaterial, if not at the time, in fact, acting within the scope of his employment. Thus, if a housemaid takes upon herself to clean a chimney, an operation usually performed by persons specially employed for that purpose, her master will not be liable for the consequences of her act. The master will, of course, be liable if he previously authorized the act or subsequently ratified it.
Debts incurred by servants.—With regard to goods ordered by a servant, the master is not responsible unless the servant had express or implied authority to pledge his credit. The servant's authority to do so will be implied if the master has previously paid for goods ordered by the servant on credit, and the master's liability will only be determinable by express notice to the tradesman.
NUISANCES
I. NUISANCES AT COMMON LAW
1. Private Nuisances.—A private nuisance consists in the interference with another person's rights. And where such is shown, in fact, to exist, it is immaterial whether the person who committed or permitted the act or omission complained of exercised care or not, and any question as to his motive is likewise irrelevant, except in the case of "reciprocal nuisances," which are referred to hereafter, p. 1983.
Nuisance committed in exercise of statutory powers.—It must be remembered that an act which would otherwise constitute a nuisance may be justifiable under an Act of Parliament. Thus, if a railway company, having to select the site for a cattle station, proceed to build it in a place the noise from the cattle is a source of nuisance, they will not be responsible in the absence of negligence in the mode of conducting their business. Similarly, a water company, having statutory powers to lay mains, will not, in the absence of negligence, be liable for damage caused by the bursting of one of their mains.
Remedies available.—Where a private nuisance exists damages, or an injunction to prevent its continuance, or both, may be obtained by the person whose rights have been infringed, provided that a right to do that which is complained of has not been acquired by prescription.[1] And in certain cases the person injured may himself abate the nuisance; for instance where trees overhang the adjoining premises, the occupier thereof may, even without notice to the owner of the trees, cut off the overhanging portion of the branches,[2] but in no case can a person go on to his neighbour's soil, in order to remove a nuisance, except in a case of emergency, unless he has first give his neighbour notice to remove it. The fact that the person who complains of the nuisance acquired his property with knowledge of the existing circumstances does not afford any defence.
(1) Nusiances Affecting a neighbours property—Apart from statute an occupier of premises may use them as he pleases, provided that he does not interfere with the legal rights of another. Thus, he may sink wells on
