Page images

Morgan v. Vale of Neath Ry. Co. (1864), L. R. 1 Q. B. 149 ; 35 L. J. Q. B. 23; 13 L. T. N. S. 564 ; 14 W. R. 144; 5 B. & S. 570; 10 Jur. N. S. 1074; 33 L. J. Q. B. 260. (See p. 306.)

Hall v. Johnson (1865), 3 H. & C. 589; 34 L. J. Ex. 222 ; 13 W. R. 411; 11 L. T. N. S. 779. (See p. 306.)

Murphy v. Smith (1865), 12 L. T. N. S. 605. (Plaintiff, a boy of tender years, and a person who managed the works in the absence of the manager.)

Feltham v. England (1866), L. R. 2 Q. B. 33; 36 L. J. Q. B. 14; 7 B. & S. 676; 15 W. R. 151. (Plaintiff, a workman, in the employment of maker of locomotive engines, and foreman of the workshop, his superior, fellow servants; plaintiff injured by the giving way of piers supporting a tramway and travelling-crane ; defendant not liable, there being no evidence of personal negligence.)

Tunney v. Midland Ry. Co. (1866), L. R. 1 C. P. 291. (See p. 306.) Murray v. Currie (1870), L. R. 6 C. P. 24. (See p. 308.) Howells v. Landore Siemens Steel Co. (1874), L. R. 10 Q. B. 62. (See p. 306.)

Lovell v. Howell (1876), L. R. 1 C. P. D. 161; 45 L. J. C. P. 387. (Plaintiff, a licensed waterman and lighterman employed by defendant, à warehouse-keeper, at weekly wages, to moor and unmoor barges ; he was in the habit of passing through the warehouse on the way to manager's office to receive orders or when sent for ; being sent for, he was on his way to the office, and he was knocked down by a sack of grain through the negligence of defendant's servants in hoisting goods.)

Rourke v. White Moss Co. (1876), L. R. 1 C. P. Ď. 556 ; 2 C. P. D. 205. (See p. 309.)

Conway v. Belfast Ry. Co. (1877), 11 Ir. C. L. 345. (General traffic manager and milesman.

Exchequer Chamber affirming decision of Common Pleas.)

Charles v. Taylor (1878), L. R. 3 C. P. D. 492 ; 38 L. T. 773 ; 27 W. R. 32. (Plaintiff

, hired by A. to assist in unloading a barge at the wharf of defendants, who were brewers. Plaintiff and A., with other men, formed a gang, which was paid by defendants at ls. 9d. a ton ; the money to be paid to one of the men and distributed among the others. Defendants alone might dismiss plaintiff. A servant of the defendants engaged in moving barrels negligently let one of them slip, and plaintiff was injured. A. held to be a foreman and not a contractor, and plaintiff and A. fellow-servants.)

Not FELLOW SERVANTS. Vose v. Lancashire and Yorkshire Ry. Co. (1858), 2 H. & N. 728, N. S. 364 ; 27 L. J. Ex. 249. (Plaintiff, representative of deceased in service of East Lancashire Ry. Co., while at work in a station in the joint occupation of that company and the defendant company, killed by an engine belonging to the latter, which was being shunted. The persons employed in shunting joint servants of the two companies, but the engine-driver and the persons employed in the same way as the deceased were separate servants. The accident occasioned by defects in the rules of the station.)

Abraham v. Reynolds (1860), 5 H. & N. 143; 6 Jur. N. S. 53; 8 W. R. 181. (See p. 311.)

Fletcher v. Peto (1862), 3 F. & F. 368. (Plaintiff engaged by wharfinger


to land bags of guano and carry them to warehouse to be piled there by day-labourers ; plaintiff injured by the fall of some of the bags, which had been negligently piled. The jury held that the plaintiff was engaged in separate work from that of defendant's men.)

Cleveland v. Spiers (1864), 16 C. B. N. S. 399. (A mere passer by being asked by a workman to give information as to mode of making a hole in a gas pipe; not a volunteer assistant, within Degg v. Midland Ry. Co.)

Warburton v. Great Western Ry. Co. (1866), L. R. 2 Ex. 30; 36 L. J. Ex. 9; 4 H. &C. 695 ; 15 W. R. 108. (Plaintiff, a porter in the service of the London and North-Western Ry. Co., at their Manchester station, which was used by the defendants' Company, injured by the negligence of an engine-driver in the service of the defendants' company ; the defendants servants, when within the station were subject to the rules of the London and North-Western Ry. Co. Defendants liable.)

Smith v. Steele (1875), 32 L. T. N. S. 195 ; 44 L. J. Q. B. 60. (Pilot engaged by defendants under the compulsory clause of Merchant Shipping Act, 1854, and shipowner's servants.)

Turner v. Great Eastern Ry. Co. (1875), 33 L. T. 431. (See p. 313.)

Wright v. London and North-Western Ry. Co. (1876), 45 L. J. Q. B. 570; L. R. 10 Q. B. 298 ; L. R. 1 Q. B. D. 252. (See p. 315.)

Swainson v. North-Eastern Ry. Co. (1878), L. R. 3 Ex. D. 341 ; 47 L. J. Q. B. 372. (See p. 312.)



Reid v. Bartonshill Coal Co. (1858), 20 D. 13; 3 Macq. 266 ; Paterson, App. I., 785. (See p. 306.)

Wilson v. Merry (1868), L. R. 1 S. & D. App. 326. (Miner and general manager of mine fellow-servants, though latter had been guilty of negligence

before the former entered the service of the plaintiff.) Macfarlane v. Caledonian Ry. Co. (6 Dec. 1867), 6 Macq. 102. (A railway labourer and an inspector.).

Leddy v. Gibson (Jan. 1, 1873), 11 M, 304. (Sailor and captain of a merchant vessel.)


Clark v. McLaren (Nov. 2, 1871), 10 M. 31. (Plaintiff employed in a chemical work; engaged by master to move under the manager of the chemical department a roof which had been injured ; plaintiff hurt by the falling in of roof. Held that the doctrine of common employment did not apply, as neither workman nor manager engaged in his proper work.)

Adams v. Glasgow and South-Western Ry. Co. (Dec. 7, 1875), 3 R. 215. (A., employed as fireman by the Caledonian Ry. Co., killed on line of defendants, over which the Caledonian Ry. Co. had running powers, by the negligence of a clerk in the service of defendants.)

[blocks in formation]

FELLOW SERVANTS. Hard v. Vermont Central Ry. Co., 32 Vt. 473. (Mechanics in machine shop of defendants, and servants in charge of the trains.)

Sherman v. Rochester Ry. Co., 17 N. Y. 153. (A brakesman of a train and engineer or conductor who has directed it to be run at an unsafe speed.)

Gilman v. Eastern Ry. Co., 92 Mass. 233. (Carpenter employed by defendants ; part of his duty to travel to and from his place of work on defendants' line. Fellow-servant of pointsman.)

Johnson v. Boston, 118 Mass. 114. (See p. 48.)

Holder v. Fitchburg Railroad, 129 Mass. 268. (A brakesman of a train and workmen employed in widening the railway.)


p. 303.)

The following are some of the chief decisions relative to the duty of masters in regard to machinery and plant :

Seymour v. Maddox (1851), 20 L. J. Q. B. 327 ; 16 Q. B. 326.

Skipp v. Eastern Counties Ry. Co. (1853), 9 Ex. 223; 23 L. J. Ex. 23. (Plaintiff employed to attach carriages to locomotive ; defendants did not employ a sufficient number of men ; but plaintiff had worked several months without any complaint.)

Dynen v. Leach (1857), 26 L. J. Ex. 221. (Defendant, from motives of economy, substituted for the usual and safest mode of lifting sugar moulds a clip. The deceased, a labourer in the employment of defendant, fastened the clip, which slipped, so that a mould fell, ard killed the deceased. No case to go to the jury ; the labourer having known all the circumstances, and having voluntarily used the machinery.)

Ormond v. Holland (1858), E. B. & E. 102. (Defendants, builders, and plaintiff in their employment as bricklayer; plaintiff injured by the breaking of a round in a ladder. “There being no evidence of personal negligence, either by interference in the working or in hiring the servants, or in choosing the implements." Defendants not liable.)

Alsop v. Yates (1858), 27 L. J. Ex. D. 156. (Defendants set up a hoarding which projected too far into the street ; a heavy machine was put between the hoarding and building; a ladder upon which plaintiff was, near it; plaintiff had complained of the position, and the defendant had said that it was dangerous and would be altered. A cart ran against the hoarding, and the machine fell upon the plaintiff

, and knocked him down. Defendant not liable because, inter alia, the plaintiff continued working with full knowledge.)

Griffiths v. Gidlow (1858), 27 L. J. Ex. 404. (See p. 325.)
Senior v. Ward (1859), 1 E. & E. 385. (See p. 329.)
Riley v. Baxendale (1861), 6 H. & N. 445 ; 30 L. J. Ex. 87; 9 W. R.

347. (Declaration by administratrix that J. R. was servant of the defendants on the terms that they would take due and ordinary care not to expose the said J. R. to extraordinary risk and danger in the course of his employment; yet the defendant did not take due and ordinary care not to expose, &c. No such contract could be implied from ordinary contract of service.) Potts v. Port of Carlisle Ry. Co., 2 L. T. N. S. 282.

Ogden v. Rummens (1863), 3 F. & F. 751. (Workmen employed in shoreing up arch, and injured by falling in of it; defendants, not having knowledge or reasonable means of knowledge of the danger, not liable.) See also Tarrant v. Webb (1856), 5 L. J. C. P. 51. Brown v. Accrington Cotton Co. (1865), 3 H. & C. 511 ; 34 L. J. Ex.

; 208 ; 13 L. T. N. S. 94. (Defendants erected a mill by contracts made with different persons; appointed clerk of works to superintend building; plaintiff, employed by clerk of works, injured by fall of floor. Defendauts not liable, there being no evidence of personal negligence on the part of defendants or personal interference.)

Saston v. Hawkworth (1872), 26 L. T. 851. (See p. 317.)

Allen v. The New Gas Co. (1876), L. R. 1 Ex. D. 251; 45 L. J. Ex. 668 ; 34 L. T. 541. (See p. 322.) Maddicks v. G. N. Ry. Co. (1877), W. N., P.



LIABLE. Roberts v. Smith (1857), 2 H. & N. 213 ; 3 Jur. N. S. 469 ; 26 L. J. Ex. 319. (Plaintiff, a bricklayer, in the employment of defendants, injured by the fall of a scaffold; the materials for the scaffold were defective; one of the labourers engaged in constructing the scaffold having tried the logs, one of the defendants said, “ They will do very well ; don't break any more. " A new trial, on the ground of evidence of personal interference and negligence by master). See also Webb v. Rennie (1865), 4 F. & F. 608.

Williams v. Clough (1858), 3 H. & N. 258. (Defendant ordered plaintiff to use a ladder, which he knew to be unsound ; plaintiff injured ; defendant liable.) Caswell v. Worth (1856), 5 E. & B. 849. (See p. 479.) Doel v. Sheppard (1856), 5 E. & B. 856. (See p. 479.) Murphy v. Phillips (1876), 35 L. T. 477 ; 24 W. R. 647. (See p. 320.) Holmes v. Worthington (1861), 3 F. & F. 533. (See p. 327.) Daries v. England (1864), 33 L. J. Q. B. 321. (See p. 321.) Holmes v. Clarke (1862), 31 L. J. Ex. 356. (See p. 327.)

Watling v. Oastler (1871), L. R. 6 Ex. 73 ; 40 L. J. Ex. 43 ; 23 L. T. 815 ; 19 W. R. 388. (Declaration by plaintiff as administratrix of G. W. for that it was necessary for G. W. in the course of his employment to get into a certain machine which was constructed defectively and in an unsafe manner, as the defendants well knew. While G. W. was so employed the machine was suddenly put in motion, and G. W. injured. Not necessary to aver that G. W. was ignorant of the defective state of machine.)

Britton v. Great Western Cotton Co. (1872), L. R. 7 Ex. 130. (See p. 327.)


LIABLE. Huddlestone v. Lowell Machine Shop, 106 Mass. 282. (Plaintiff employed as a watchman in machine shop of defendants. A portion of the Hoor over which he had to pass in the discharge of his duty was in a state of decay ; the defendant knew or might have known of the dangerous condition of the floor ; Court refused to say he was guilty of negligence; a question for the jury whether plaintiff was negligent in remaining with his knowledge that the floor was decayed.).

Ryan v. Fowler, 24 N. Y. 410. (Plaintiff, a girl of fourteen, employed by defendant in his mill; over the water wheel was a privy, supported by wooden scantling. The timber had become somewhat rotten ; and there was evidence that some repairs ordered by defendant had weakened the support ; plaintiff injured." Defendant liable.)

Laning v. N. Y. Central Ry. Co., 49 N. Y. 521. (Defendant retained in his service a foreman, who was drunk and who had employed an unskilled workman to superintend scaffold, liable for injuries caused by its defects.)

Nor LIABLE. Faulkner v. Erie Railroad Co., 49 Barb. N. Y. 324. (Plaintiff, a servant of defendants, injured by the breaking down of a bridge due to dry-rot in its timbers ; no personal negligence. Defendants not liable.)

« EelmineJätka »