Daniel v. . R. R.

AVERY, J., concurs, but dissents from so much of the opinion of the Chief Justice, as (according to his construction of it) makes the liability of defendant dependent upon the question whether the agent was acting within the scope of his employment, he holding the view that the liability of a common carrier for the acts of its servants is absolute as to injuries inflicted by them on persons under their protection. He also emphasizes his view that the principle decided by this case applies to common carriers, and not to master and servant generally. The following issues were submitted to the…