Linden v. City Car Co.

Wickhem,. J.

Upon this appeal there is no substantial difference of opinion as to the rule of law to be applied.. The rule'that the principal is not liable for acts of a servant outside the scope of his employment is too elementary and well established to warrant exposition at any length here. Ratcliffe v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. 153 Wis. 281, 141 N. W. 229; Mandel v. Byram, 191 Wis. 446, 211 N. W. 145. It is also the rule that a wanton and malicious act done by a servant with an intention to further or as an incident to his master’s employment is within the course of his employment. See…