A workman had been killed through the overturning of the miners’ cage, the engineman having failed to stop the ascending cage at the platform and having allowed it to be sent with great force up against the scaffolding. An allegation was made that there had been no safe system of working.
Held: After dealing with the maxim ‘respondeat superior’, Lord Cranworth said: ‘But do the same principles apply to the case of a workman injured by the want of care of a fellow-workman engaged together in the same work? I think not. When the workman contracts to do work of any particular sort, he knows, or ought to know, to what risks he is exposing himself; he knows, if such be the nature of the risk, that want of care on the part of a fellow-workman may be injurious or fatal to him, and that against such want of care his employer cannot by possibility protect him. If such want of care should occur, and evil is the result, he cannot say that he does not know whether the master or the servant was to blame. He knows that the blame was wholly that of the servant. He cannot say the master need not have engaged in the work at all, for he was party to its being undertaken.’ The law on this point should be the same in Scotland as in England.
References: (1858) 3 Macqu 265
Judges: Lord Cranworth
Jurisdiction: Scotland
This case is cited by:
- Cited – Wilsons and Clyde Coal Co Ltd v English HL 19-Jul-1937 ([1938] AC 57, , [1937] UKHL 2, [1937] 3 All ER 628)
The employer had entrusted the task of organising a safe system of work to an employee as a result of whose negligence another employee was injured. The employer could not have been held liable for its own negligence, since it had taken all . . - Cited – Farraj and Another v King’s Healthcare NHS Trust (KCH) and Another CA 13-Nov-2009 (, [2009] EWCA Civ 1203, (2010) 11 BMLR 131, [2010] PIQR P7, [2010] Med LR 1)
The claimant parents each carried a gene making any child they bore liable to suffer a serious condition. On a pregnancy the mother’s blood was sent for testing to the defendants who sent it on to the second defendants. The condition was missed, . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 25 October 2020; Ref: scu.379553 br>