The respondent was employed as a shot firer in a quarry, and was to test the electric wiring connecting explosive charges. Contrary to instructions that testing must be done from a shelter, the respondent and another shot firer carried out a test in the open and they were both injured.
Held: The employer’s appeal succeeded. Where two fellow-servants combined to disobey an order deliberately though they knew the risk involved, a plea of volenti non fit injuria was a complete defence if the employer was not himself at fault and was only liable vicariously for the acts of the fellow servant. The House emphasised the distinction between lack of care for one’s own safety and the true acceptance of risk. A plaintiff’s conduct cannot be described as voluntary unless he truly had a free choice.
The House considered the origins of the doctrine of vicarious liability: ‘The doctrine of vicarious liability has not grown from any very clear, logical or legal principle but from social convenience and rough justice’, and ‘an employer who is himself at fault in persistently refusing to comply with a statutory rule could not possibly be allowed to escape liability because the injured workman had agreed to waive the breach.’
Lord Reid said that though ‘. . an employer who is himself at fault in persistently refusing to comply with a statutory rule could not possibly be allowed to escape liability because the injured workman had agreed to waive the breach.’, ‘It was argued that in this case it has not been shown that George [Shatwell] had a full appreciation of the risk. In my view it must be held that he had. He knew that those better qualified than he was took the risk seriously. He knew that his employers had forbidden this practice and that it had then been prohibited by statutory regulation. And he knew that his employers were taking strong measures to see that the order was obeyed. If he did not choose to believe what he was told I do not think that he could for that reason say that he did not fully appreciate the risk. He knew that the risk was that a charge would explode during testing, and no shot firer could be in any doubt about the possible consequences of that.’
Lord Pearce: ‘The doctrine of vicarious liability has not grown from any very clear, logical or legal principle but from social convenience and rough justice’. And ‘I am not persuaded that there is any reason of principle or policy which can be of substantial guidance in the resolution of the problem of applying the rule in any particular case. Theory may well justify the existence of the concept, but it is hard to find guidance from any underlying principle which will weigh in the decision whether in a particular case a particular wrongful act by the employee should or should not be regarded as falling within the scope of the employment.’
and ‘Since contributory negligence has ceased to be a total defence and it has become possible to produce a fair result by apportionment, the reluctance to find the total defence of volenti non fit injuria became more marked …’
and ‘Where Parliament has laid down that certain precautions shall be taken by the master to protect his workman, the master is not and should not be entitled to neglect those precautions and then rely on an expressed or implied agreement between himself and the workman that the latter, if injured as a result of the neglect, will bear the loss alone.’
Viscount Radcliffe: ‘These considerations apart, there are involved in this case questions as to the application of the maxim volenti non fit injuria and as to the principle that in the eyes of the law a man cannot be treated as having disavowed a statutory protection enacted for his benefit in the public interest. On these points, I have had the opportunity of studying in advance the opinions of your Lordships, and I wish to associate myself in particular with the opinion to be delivered by my noble and learned friend, Lord Pearce. I do think it of great importance that the law should not in general allow a person to disqualify himself from the protection of a statutory duty imposed for his benefit, where there is any element of public advantage in upholding the duty. But I do not think that this is a case in which that principle applies.’ and
‘My Lords, it helps sometimes to assess the merits of a decision if one starts by noticing its results and only after doing that allots to it the legal principles upon which it is said to depend.’
Lord Hodson said that a plaintiff’s conduct cannot be described as voluntary unless he truly had a free choice.
Judges:
Lord Pearce, Lord Hodson, Viscount Radcliffe
Citations:
[1964] 2 All ER 999, [1964] UKHL 2, [1965] AC 656
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Yarmouth v France CA 11-Aug-1887
The plaintiff was employed by the defendant to drive carts. He objected that the horse had a vicious nature, but was obliged to drive it in any event. The horse kicked him.
Held: For the purposes of the 1880 Act, the plaintiff was an employee, . .
Cited by:
Cited – Lister and Others v Hesley Hall Ltd HL 3-May-2001
A school board employed staff to manage a residential school for vulnerable children. The staff committed sexual abuse of the children. The school denied vicarious liability for the acts of the teachers.
Held: ‘Vicarious liability is legal . .
Cited – McTear v Imperial Tobacco Ltd OHCS 31-May-2005
The pursuer sought damages after her husband’s death from lung cancer. She said that the defenders were negligent in having continued to sell him cigarettes knowing that they would cause this.
Held: The action failed. The plaintiff had not . .
Cited – Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis v Reeves (Joint Administratix of The Estate of Martin Lynch, Deceased) HL 15-Jul-1999
The deceased was a prisoner known to be at risk of committing suicide. Whilst in police custody he hanged himself in his prison cell. The Commissioner accepted that he was in breach of his duty of care to the deceased, but not that that breach was . .
Cited – Majrowski v Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Trust CA 16-Mar-2005
The claimant had sought damages against his employer, saying that they had failed in their duty to him under the 1997 Act in failing to prevent harassment by a manager. He appealed a strike out of his claim.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The . .
Cited – Majrowski v Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Trust CA 16-Mar-2005
The claimant had sought damages against his employer, saying that they had failed in their duty to him under the 1997 Act in failing to prevent harassment by a manager. He appealed a strike out of his claim.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The . .
Cited – Majrowski v Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Trust HL 12-Jul-2006
Employer can be liable for Managers Harassment
The claimant employee sought damages, saying that he had been bullied by his manager and that bullying amounting to harassment under the 1997 Act. The employer now appealed a finding that it was responsible for a tort committed by a manager, saying . .
Cited – White v Blackmore CA 15-Jun-1972
The plaintiff attended a jalopy car race and was injured. It was a condition of his entry that he agreed that motor racing was dangerous and that he would not hold the organisers or others responsible if injured. He was injured when a safety rope, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Vicarious Liability, Health and Safety
Leading Case
Updated: 24 April 2022; Ref: scu.189975