Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

thing for the benefit of the employer or of a third
person.

The scope of this chapter is not confined to servants,
but includes factors, brokers, carriers, agents, and all
similar classes of persous.

ARTICLE II.

OBLIGATIONS OF THE EMPLOYER.

SECTION 1005. When employer must indemnify employee.

1006. When not.

1007. Employer to indemnify for his own negligence.

ployer must employee.

S1005. An employer must indemnify his em- When employee, except as prescribed in the next section, for indemnify all that he necessarily expends or loses in direct consequence of the discharge of his duties as such,1 or of his obedience to the directions of the employer,2 even though unlawful, unless the employee, at the time of obeying such directions, believed them to be unlawful.

1 Story Agency, § 335 to § 340; Code of La., 2991, 2993;
Castle v. Noyes, 14 N. Y., 332; Powell v. Newburgh,
19 Johns., 284; Ramsay v. Gardner, 11 id., 439;
Adamson v. Jarvis, 4 Bing., 66; Betts v. Gibbins, 2
Ad. & El., 57; Taylor v. Stray, 2 C. B. (N. S.), 196.
Roberts v. Smith, 2 H. & N., 213.

Adamson v. Jarvis, 4 Bing., 66; see Humphrys v. Pratt,
5 Bligh (N. S.), 154; as explained in Collins v. Evans,
5 Q. B., 829, 830.

S1006. An employer is not bound to indemnify when not. his employee for losses suffered by the latter in consequence of the ordinary risks of the business in which he is employed, nor in consequence of the negligence of another person employed by the same employer in the same general business,1 unless he has neglected to use ordinary care in the selection of the culpable employee."

1 Sherman v. Rochester & Syracuse R. R., 17 N. Y., 156;
Russell v. Hudson River R. R., id., 136; Coon v.
Syracuse & Utica R. R., 5 id., 492; Boldt v. New
York Central R. R., 18 id., 432.

* See same cases, and Ormond v. Holland, El. B. & E., 105.

Employer

to indem

S1007. An employer must in all cases indemnify

nify for his his employee for losses caused by his own want of

own negli

gence.

ordinary care.

Ryan v. Fowler, 24 N. Y., 410; Roberts v. Smith, 2 H. &
N., 213; Keegan v. Western R. R., 8 N. Y., 175, 180.

Duties of gratuitous employee.

Id.

ARTICLE III.

OBLIGATIONS OF THE EMPLOYEE.

SECTION 1008, 1009, 1010. Duties of gratuitous employee.
1011. Duties of employee for reward.

1012. Duties of employee for his own benefit.
1013. Contracts for service limited to two years.

1014. Employee must obey employer.

1015. Employee to conform to usage.

1016. Degree of skill required.

1017. Must use what skill he has.

1018. What belongs to employer.

1019. Duty to account.

1020. Employee not bound to deliver without demand.

1021. Preference to be given to employers.

1022. Responsibility of employee for substitute.

1023. Responsibility for negligence.

1024. Surviving employee.

1025. Confidential employment.

S1008. One who, without consideration, undertakes to do a service for another, is not bound to perform the same, but if he actually enters upon its performance, he must use at least slight care and diligence therein.

Edson v. Watson, 7 Cow., 278; Coggs v. Bernard, 2 Ld.
Raym., 909; Elsee v. Gatward, 5 T. R., 143; Wilson
v. Brett, 11 M. & W., 113; see Nolton v. Western R.
R., 15 N. Y., 440.

S1009. One who, by his own special request, induces another to intrust him with the performance of a service, must perform the same fully. In other cases one who undertakes a gratuitous service may relinquish it at any time.

Story Bailm., § 166. This distinction is recognized by the civil law, but it is not clear that it is admitted by the common law. There is good reason for it, since

a volunteer of this kind might seriously mislead one
who relied upon him, and who would otherwise have
employed some one else for a compensation, and thus
have been sure of the service he required.

S 1010. A gratuitous employee, who accepts a writ- 18.
ten power of attorney, must act under it so long as
it remains in force, or until he gives notice to his em-
ployer that he will not do so.

Code La., 2971. This provision is new to the common
law: but is founded upon justice. By retaining the
instrument, the attorney keeps in his hands a power
which he may use to the detriment of his principal,
and misleads the latter into the belief that he will use
it for his benefit.

$ 1011. One who, for a good consideration, agrees to serve another, must perform the service, and must use ordinary care and diligence therein, so long as he is thus employed.

Story on Bailm., §§ 398, 399, 429, 442. Ordinary care
and diligence are all that are required (Johnson v. N. Y.
Central R. R., 31 Barb., 196; Ackley v. Kellogg, 8
Cow., 223; Brown v. Denison, 2 Wend., 593; Platt v.
Hibbard, 7 Cow., 497).

S1012. One who is employed at his own request to do that which is more for his own advantage than for that of his employer, must use great care and diligence therein to protect the interest of the latter.

S 1013. A contract to render personal service, other than a contract of apprenticeship under sections 140, 143, or 149, cannot be enforced against the employee beyond the term of two years from the commencement of service under it, but if the employee voluntarily continues his service under it beyond that time, the contract may be referred to as affording a presumptive measure of the compensation.

This section is new.

Duties of for reward.

employee

Duties of for his own

employee

benefit.

Contracts limited to

for service

two years.

must obey

S 1014. An employee must substantially1 comply Employee with all the directions of his employer concerning employer. the service on which he is engaged, even though contrary to the provisions of this Title, except where

[blocks in formation]

such obedience is impossible, or unlawful, or would impose new and unreasonable burdens upon the employee, or in case of an emergency which, according to the best information which the employee can with reasonable diligence obtain, the employer did not contemplate, in which he cannot, with reasonable diligence, be consulted, and in which non-compliance is judged by the employee, in good faith, and in the exercise of reasonable discretion, to be absolutely necessary for the protection of the employer's interests. In all such cases, the employee must conform as nearly to the directions of his employer as may be reasonably practicable, and most for the interest of the latter.5

3

4

'Substantial and not literal obedience, is required (Johnson v. N. Y. Central R. R., 31 Barb., 196; Parkhill v. Imlay, 15 Wend., 431).

Evans v. Root, N. Y., 186; Blot v. Boiceau, 3 id., 78; Bruce v. Davenport, 36 Barb., 349; Bell v. Palmer, 6 Cow., 128; Wilson v. Wilson, 26 Penn. St., 394; see Johnson v. N. Y. Central R. R., 31 Barb., 196; Ackley v. Kellogg, 8 Cow., 223; Turner v. Mason, 14 M. & W., 112; Amor v. Fearon, 9 Ad. & El., 548. Johnson v. N. Y. Central R. R., 31 Barb., 196; Drnm

mond v. Wood, 2 Cai., 310.

♦ Ib.; Story on Agency, §§ 85, 141, 193; Dusar v. Perit,

4 Binn., 361.

Johnson v. N. Y. Central R. R., 31 Barb., 196.

S 1015. An employee must perform his service in conformity to the usage of the place of performance, unless otherwise directed by his employer, or unless it is impracticable, or manifestly injurious to his employer to do so.

Story on Agency, § 199; Johnson v. N. Y. Central R. R., 31 Barb., 196; see Horton v. Morgan, 19 N. Y., 170.

S1016. An employee is bound to exercise a reasonable degree of skill,' unless his employer has notice, before employing him, of his want of skill.'

1 Harmer v. Cornelius, 5 C. B. (N. S.), 236; Story Bailm.,
SS 431-435; see Cuckson v. Stones, 1 El. & El., 248.
Shiells v. Blackburne, 1 H. Blacks., 158; Felt v. School
Dist., 24 Vt., 297.

S1017. An employee is always bound to use such Must use skill as he possesses.

Wilson v. Brett, 11 M. & W., 113.

what skill he has.

longs to em

S 1018. Everything which an employee acquires what beby virtue of his employment, except the compensa- ployer. tion, if any, which is due to him from his employer, belongs to the latter, whether acquired lawfully or unlawfully,' or during, or after the expiration of,2 the term of his employment.

1 Code La., 2974; see Tenant v. Elliott, 1 Bos. & P., 3;
Farmer v. Russell, id., 296; Bousfield v. Wilson, 16
M. & W., 185.

Edmondstone v. Hartshorne, 19 N. Y., 9.

count.

S1019. An employee must, on demand, render to Duty to ao his employer just accounts of all his transactions in the course of his service, as often as may be reasonable,' and must, without demand, give prompt notice to his employer of everything which he receives for his account.2

[blocks in formation]

not bound

to deliver mand.

without de

$1020. An employee, who receives anything on Employee account of his employer, in any capacity other than that of a mere servant, is not bound to deliver it to him until demanded,' and is not at liberty to send it to him from a distance without demand, in any mode involving greater risk than its retention by the employee himself.3

This seems to the commissioners to be the true princi

ple upon which the cases holding a demand to be
necessary as against a factor (Baird v. Walker, 12
Barb., 298; Halden v. Crafts, 4 E. D. Smith, 490;
2 Abb. Pr., 301; Cooley v. Betts, 24 Wend., 203;
Ferris v. Paris, 10 Johns., 285), an attorney (Stafford
v. Richardson, 15 Wend., 302; Rathbun v. Ingalls,
7 id., 320; Taylor v. Bates, 5 Cow., 376; Beardsley
v. Root, 11 Johns., 464) and other agents (Reina v.
Cross, 6 Cal., 31), are founded. In Lillie v. Hoyt (5
Hill, 395), the rule was limited to attorneys and

« AnteriorContinuar »