—it was said that when carriers undertake to convey persons by the powerful and dangerous agency of steam, public policy and safety require that they be held to the greatest possible care and diligence,—that the personal safety of passengers should not be left to the sport of chance, or the negligence of careless agents.

A master is liable to third persons injured by negligent acts done by his servant in the course of his employment, although the master did not authorize or know of the servant's act or neglect, or even if he disapproved or forbade it.

Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, a master is liable for the tortious acts of his servant, if done in the course of the servant's employment, even though such acts may have been done without the knowledge or authority of the master, or in disobedience of the master's orders.

"A master is liable for the tortious acts of his servant when done in the course of his employment, although they may be done in disobedience of the master's orders."

Analogizing the entrustment of a motor vehicle to that of a locomotive, the court articulated the dangerous instrumentality doctrine as follows:[O] ne who authorizes and permits an instrumentality that is peculiarly dangerous in its operation to be used by another on the public highway is liable in damages for injuries to third persons caused by the negligent operation of …

But a more careful examination will show that they depended on the question, whether the servant, at the time he did the act complained of, was acting in the course of his employment, or in other words, whether he was or was not at the time in the relation of servant to the defendant.

—which was an action by a passenger against a railroad corporation for a personal injury suffered through the negligence of its servants, the jury were instructed that'the damages, if any were recoverable, are to be confined to the direct and immediate consequences of the injury sustained;'and no exception was taken to this instruction.

—where the servant of a railroad company took an engine and ran it over the road for his own gratification, not only without consent, but contrary to express orders, the Supreme Court of the United States held that the railroad company was responsible.

But even an action by a passenger, or by an owner of goods, against a carrier, for neglect to carry and deliver in safety, is an action for the breach of a duty imposed by the law, independently of contract or of consideration, and is therefore founded in tort.