Now, in cases in which an inspector is held to represent the em-
ployer and does nothing more, there can be no difficulty in fast-
ening liability whenever it exists; but an inspector may act in a
double capacity as an inspector, in which he represents his em-
ployer, and in another capacity, in which he does not. For ex-
ample, does an engineer, when acting as an inspector of his engine,
represent his employer, and if so, will a notice to him of a defect
therein given, say by a fireman, have the same eifect as a notice
to the principal? Again, a brakeman is often required to inspect
his brakes; is he, when performing this duty, acting for his prin-
cipal and doing his work? In one of the cases that has happened
in Texas a fireman was injured by the separating of the engine
from the tender. It was the duty of the engineer to inspect the
engine and make sure that the coupling was safe. Through his

(26) 54 Kansas 21, 31.
64

failure to perform this duty, the fireman was injured and the com-
pany was held negligent, because his negligence to do his duty
as an inspector was regarded as the negligence of the company.
