In the English law provinces, then, when an em ploye is injured by the act or fault of a fellow-em ploye, the master is not liable. In the Province of Quebec, this fellow-servant rule is not followed. The master is responsible, tho the accident be due to the neglect or carelessness of the fellow-employe, whether he is a foreman or an ordinary workman.
A vice-principal, on the other hand, is one whom the master charges, in his stead, to provide warning of ex traordinary danger, safe tools, for the employment of competent workmen, for the repair of machinery and maintenance of guards on dangerous machines. If the person so charged is careless in the per formance of these duties and a workman is injured, it is as tho the master himself were negligent; and as a result he is liable in damages. The vice-principal is not a fellow-servant. The master's duties in these matters are said to be non-assignable; he does not rid himself of responsibility by charging another with the performance of his own duties.
5. :Vaster liable for servant's acts.—The general rule is that the master is responsible for the negligent acts of his servant done in the course and within the scope of his employment. The servant will also be liable. The master would not be responsible for the acts of his servant done contrary to his positive in structions. He will be responsible where in the per formance of his duties the servant is injudicious and causes damage, or is drunk and causes damage.
Thus if a servant, in the discharge of his duties, is driving a horse which runs away and dashes thru a shop window, the master is liable. It would not be a sufficient plea that the servant was exercising rea sonable care. A street-car conductor in the course of an argument with a passenger strikes and injures a passenger. The company is liable, because carriers must protect passengers from assaults or injuries by employes/as well as by other passengers.
A man was driving a wagon just in front of a street car. He turned out for it at a street intersection, where many people were standing in the roadway waiting to board the car: He shouted for them to get out of the way, and drove thru the crowd in such a reckless manner as to strike a person who was at tempting to board the car which was then opposite the wagon. The person struck was thrown down and the car ran over and crushed his foot. It was held that the master was clearly liable.' 6. Servant's personal liability.—A servant may render himself personally liable in certain cases. As we have just seen, he is liable with his master where he negligently causes injury to third persons or to property. He will be liable where, while acting as
his master's agent, he does not, in dealing with third persons, disclose the fact of his agency. If he con tracts in his own name for his master, he should de scribe himself as "agent for," or "per," "pro," and so on. If he wilfully causes damage, whether acting within the scope of his employment or not, he is liable as a principal. So also if, jointly with his master, he commits any fraud or crime.
7. Workmen's compensation acts.—We have indi cated that at common law, in all the provinces, a work man is injured in the course of his employment. has an action in damages against his employer. In several provinces, the common law rules have been al tered by workmen's compensation acts. Under these acts, speaking generally, the employer is liable to com pensate the workman for injuries which result: (a) From defects in "ways, works, machinery, plant, buildings or premises" connected with the business.
(b) From negligencg of those who have the super intendence of the work.
(c) From negligence of those to whose orders the workman was bound to conform and did in fact con form.
(d) By reason of an act or omission by an employe in compliance with rules or by-laws of the employer.
(e) By reason of the negligence of any person in the employer's service and in charge of any points or signals, machine, train or car.
If the accident is caused by the workman's wilful misconduct or negligence, he is not allowed compen sation. The accident may have been caused by a fel low-employe. The injured workman may proceed against him or against the employer, but not against both.
The Quebec Workmen's Compensation Act makes the employer liable (except in agricultural industries) for all accidents occurring to the workman by reason of or in the course of his employment, unless the acci dent was caused intentionally by the workman. If the workman or the employer is guilty of inexcusable fault, the courts may diminish or increase the compen sation accordingly. Thus it has been held in a Que bec case that the fact that a workman, despite warn ings, persists in remaining in a place of danger and is killed, is inexcusable fault on his part for which the damages should be diminished. It does not fol low, however, that the accident was intentionally in duced by him so as to deprive his representatives of the right of indemnity. The Quebec Act does not require, as do certain of the other acts, that notice of the accident or death be given within a stated period, but action must be brought within a year from the accident.