## Facts

- A pedestrian (Joel) was walking on a public highway in the City of London.
- A horse-drawn cart struck Joel, fracturing his leg and causing illness and business disruption.
- The cart and horse belonged to Morison and were being driven by Morison’s servant.
- The servant drove carelessly and negligently.
- Evidence suggested the servant deviated from the expected route (between Burton Crescent Mews and Finchley) and entered the City, which Morison claimed was unauthorized.
- Joel incurred medical expenses and had to hire others to manage his business for about six months.
- Joel sued Morison in tort seeking damages; Morison pleaded not guilty.
- The jury returned a verdict for Joel after the judge instructed on master–servant liability.

## Issues

1. Whether a master is vicariously liable for a servant’s negligent driving when the servant deviates from instructions or the usual route while still generally engaged in the master’s business.
2. How to distinguish an unauthorized “detour” within the course of employment from a complete personal “frolic” outside the course of employment.

## Decision

- Morison was held liable for Joel’s injuries based on vicarious liability.
- The court instructed that liability turns on whether the servant was acting in the course of employment at the time of the accident.
- A deviation from route or implied commands does not by itself remove the servant from the course of employment if the servant remains on the master’s business.
- The master is not liable if the servant is on a purely personal expedition unrelated to the master’s business.
- The jury’s verdict for Joel reflected a finding that the servant’s conduct was, at most, a detour while still pursuing Morison’s business.

## Legal Principles

- A master is liable for a servant’s negligent acts committed in the course of employment.
- An unauthorized detour while carrying out the master’s business may still be within the course of employment and can impose liability on the master.
- A servant’s complete departure from the master’s business for personal purposes (“frolic of his own”) is outside the course of employment and breaks vicarious liability.
- The scope-of-employment inquiry focuses on whether the servant was engaged in the master’s business at the time of the tort, not solely on literal compliance with route or instructions.

## Conclusion

The case established the classic course-of-employment distinction: a master remains liable for a servant’s negligence during a mere detour in the master’s business, but not when the servant wholly abandons that business for a personal “frolic.”


Joel v. Morison, 6 Car. & P. 501, 172 Eng. Rep. 1338 (Ex. 1834)