Page:Halsbury Laws of England v1 1907.pdf/786

.

1

Bailment.

564 Sect.



2.

Rights and Obligations as regards

Third Persons. Eights of bailee.

Eights of third persons.

who purport

in any way to deal with the property in the chattel (a), are guilty of conversion and liable to the bailor (h). The bailee of a chattel is also entitled, while it continues in his possession, to maintain trover in his own name against any person who may dispossess him of it (c), or to sue for damages if The fact that he is under no responsibility the chattel be injured. to his bailor for the damage resulting from the negligence of a third person, will not avoid his right of action against the tort-feasor (<i). He can recover not only the full value of the chattel bailed, for which amount he is a trustee to the true owner (e), but also any further damages which he may personally sustain through deprivation of the use of the chattel owing to its damaged condition (/)

1143. Where the bailee personally assumes the conduct and custody of the chattel bailed, he is solely responsible to a third person for any injury which the latter may sustain by reason of the negligent handling of the chattel {g). But if the chattel is in charge of his servant at the time of the injury, the bailee is only responsible if the tortious act was committed while the servant was acting within the scope of his employment (h). Where the bailor not only lets out a chattel, but also provides servants to manage it during the term of the hiring, the bailee is not responsible to a third person for injuries which may be caused by the negligence of such servants, provided that there is no interference by the bailee with such management. In that case the bailor is responsible, provided that the servants are acting in the course of their employment or within the scope of the authority delegated to them (^). But the bailor will not be responsible merely because his name is inscribed upon the chattel (j). He will be exempt if he can prove that at the time of the accident he had let out the chattel to a hirer, and that such hirer, or his agent, had control over it to the exclusion

Furlong, [1891] 2 Ch. 172. Willomatt (1845), 1 C. B. 672 Loeschman v. Machin (1818), 2 unless the transaction is protected by the Factors Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Stark. 311 Vict. c. 45), s. 2, see Ojjpenheimer v. Attenborough (b Son, [1907] 1 K. B. 510 Oppenlieimer v. Frazer and Wyatt, [1907] 2 K. B. 50 and see title Agency. (c) Burton v. Hughes (1824), 2 Bing. IIZ, per Best, C..J., at p. 175; Rootli v. Wilson (1817), 1 B. & Aid. 59,; Croft v. Alison (1821), 4 B. & Aid. 590 Raynor Sutton v. Buck (1810), 2 Taunt. 302. V. Childs (1862), 2 F. & F. 775 {d) Tlie Winkfield, [1902] P. 42 (overruling Claridge v. South Staffordshire Tramway Co., [1892] 1 Q. B. 422). (a)

Barker

v.

(6)

Cooper

v.











(e)

4.

lUd.

If) As to the measure of damages recoverable, see The Greta Holme, [1897] C 596 '(^f)

Jones V. Scullard, [1898] 2 Q. B. 565.

As to "scope of employment," see Beard v. London General Omnibus Co., Gi^acey v. Belfast Tramway Co., [1901] 2 Ir. 322 ; Limpus [1900] 2 Q. B. 530 V. London General Omnibus Co. (1862), 1 H. & C. 526. 'See titles Agency ; Qi)



Master and Servant. Quarman v. {%) Jones y: Corporation of Liverpool (1885), 14 Q. B. D. 890 Burnett (1840), 6 M. & W. 499; Dalyell v. Tyrer (1858), E. B. & E. 899 Waldoch v. Winfield, Eourke v. White Moss Colliery Co. (1877), 2 C. P. D. 205 Union Steamship Co. v. Claridge, [1894] A. C. 185. [1901] 2 K. B. 596 Smith v. Bailei/, [1891] 2 Q. B. 403. ( j)