The relation of master and servant exists when the master has the right at the moment to control the manner in which the servant shall act, e.g., a clerk is a servant: an opera singer is not. A master is liable for the act or default of his servant committed in the course of and within the scope of his employment on the ground of implied authority. If the master himself has no authority to do an act, then the servant can have no implied authority. A servant has implied authority to do all things necessary to protect his master’s property entrusted to his care, but not to arrest a person upon suspicion of an attempt to steal in order to punish the supposed offender. An independent contractor is not a servant, and the employer is not liable for -default, except where (1) the work is unlawful ; (2) it must be done in a certain way by statute and the contractor fails to do it in that way ; (3) the work is likely to cause injury, when the employer is bound to see that necessary precautions ‘are taken.
A master has an action for damages against one who entices away his servant without just cause, whereby he loses his services. A master is not required to take more care of the servant than he reasonably would of himself. As regards a servant’s injuries from the negligence of fellow servants, see Common Employment.
A servant is entitled to customary holidays and notice determining his employment, e.g., a month’s notice in the case of a clerk or menial servant. A servant wrongfully dismissed, i. e., without such notice or wages in lieu, is entitled to sue the master for breach of contract. Success in getting other employment may operate in mitigation of damages. He may also sue on a quantum meruit for work actually performed. See Limpus v. L.G.O.C. ; Storey v. Ashton<\/p>\n<\/h4>\n
You might be interested in these references tools:<\/p>\n