Is a master liable to his servant’s property for damage caused to the property of the servant?

However, Tucker J. in Deyong v. Shenburn, at p. 231 [All E.R.], observed: “I think it is important to emphasise in this case first of all that the relationship of the parties was regulated by an agreement in writing dated Dec. 2, 1944. It is quite impossible to imply any additional term into that agreement imposing any duty upon the defendant directly to take such care. The plaintiff must, therefore, look elsewhere for the foundation of the liability of the defendant, if it exists.” And again at pp. 231-32 Tucker J. is reported as follows: “... but I should desire to add, so far as I am concerned, that our decision in this case does not, of course, mean that under no circumstances is a master ever under any liability with regard to the property of his servant. He may be under such a liability arising out of the day to day relationship of one man to another which does not rest solely on the relationship of master and servant. If a man, knowing that his servants have placed their property at a certain place at his works, bicycles or clothing or what not, gives to one of his servants an order the carrying out of which will be likely to damage or imperil the safety of the servants’ goods, he may well be liable, not by reason of the relationship of master and servant but by reason of the fact that he is to that extent the servants’ neighbour. He may owe a duty to his servant with regard to his servant’s property very similar to that which is owed by one user of the highway to another.