Agency; principal's liability for negligence by agent; unauthorised acts.
Facts: Brown, a farmer, employed Winter to work on his farm. Winter was entitled to cooked meat as part of his daily lunch. On one occasion Brown provided Winter with uncooked meat. Winter cooked the meat at a convenient location on the farm, close to where he was working, despite Brown having specifically instructed him not to cook the meat at that location. Winter was careless in tending to his fire and, as a result, the fire escaped and caused damage to a neighbour's land.
Issue: Was Brown vicariously liable to his neighbour for the damage caused by Winter's negligence, despite the fact that Winter had been acting against his express instructions?
Decision: The court held Brown vicariously liable for the damage caused by Winter's negligence, as Winter had been acting within the course of his employment.
Reason: Isaacs J said (at 121):
"[T]he question of whether a given act of a servant is or is not within the course of his employment is a question of fact dependent entirely upon the circumstances of the particular case."
Here, cooking the meat while on the farm was something that Winter had done in connection with his employment, even though he did it at a different location than instructed. Isaacs J explained the rationale underlying this requirement (at 117), saying:
"The principle upon which the responsibility rests is that it is more just to make the person who has entrusted his servant with the power of acting in his business responsible for the injury occasioned to another in the course of so acting, than that the other and entirely innocent party should be left to bear the loss."