Encyclopaedia of the Laws of England, Being a New Abridgment
- ISBN-10
- 1330403266
- ISBN-13
- 9781330403266
- Category
- Law
- Pages
- 527
- Language
- English
- Published
- 2015-06-26
- Publisher
- Forgotten Books
- Author
- Frederick Pollock
Description
Excerpt from Encyclopaedia of the Laws of England, Being a New Abridgment, Vol. 5 Further, it is a logical consequence of the duty that, when, for his own purposes, he brings into existence commercial undertakings which, if not superintended and controlled with due care and caution, involve risks of personal injury to his workman engaged therein, the obligation rests upon him to exercise such care and caution. Liability for Negligent System. - It follows that an employer is responsible at common law, as well to his workmen as to other persons, for injury caused by the negligent system on which his business, if controlled and managed by himself, is carried on. Such negligence may consist either in a defective system of management, or in the use by an employer of defective agencies for the carrying on of his undertaking. Thus a failure on his part to provide machinery or workmen reasonably capable of doing the required work in a Bafe manner, is a breach of this common law duty, for which, if resulting in injury, he has always been responsible {Brown v. Accrington, 1865, 3 H. & 0. 511). The common law liability of the employer in this connection cannot be better stated than in the words of Lord Herschell in his judgment in the case of Smith v. Baker ([1891] App. Cas. 325): - It is quite dear that the contract between employer and employed involves, on the part of the former, the duty of taking reasonable care to provide appliances, and to maintain them in a proper condition, and so to carry on his operations as not to subject those employed by him to unnecessary risk. (See also Brydon v Stewart, 1855, 2 Macq. H. L. Cas. 30.) Employers' Duty Personal only.-It must be always borne in mind, for herein lies the power to properly understand the protracted dissatisfaction upon the subject of employers' liability, and the legislation resulting therefrom, that this common law duty resting upon the employer was a personal duty only, and passed from him when he delegated his duties as employer to other hands. The responsibility flowing from his duty at common law was strictly interpreted and severely restricted by the Courts of law, and the curtailing effect of some other principles of the common law, vigorously applied, soon rendered it, as far as regarded the workmen, little more than a liability in name. Limitation of Common Law Liability.-The common law doctrine that all personal actions died with the persons entitled to bring them, or against whom they were brought (actio personalis moritur cum persond), relieved the employer from the consequences of injuries resulting in death, and protected his estate from liability in cases where he died before judgment was recovered against him. Although this is altered as regards injury resulting in the workman's death by the general operation of Lord Campbell's Act (9 & 10 Viet. c. 93), and to a limited extent by the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897 (60 & 61 Viet. c. 37), in case of the employer's death, the .common law principle still remains, and in some eases may apply. By far the greatest blow to the practical utility of the employer's common law liability was dealt by a decision of the Court of Exchequer in the year 1837, in the well-known case of Priestley v. Fowler (1838, 3 Mee. & W. 1). About the Publisher Forgotten Books publishes hundreds of thousands of rare and classic books. Find more at www.forgottenbooks.com
Get the book
Similar books
-
Property Law: Rules, Policies, and Practices
By Joseph William Singer, Bethany R. Berger, Nestor M. DavidsonSee also Country Community Timberlake Village v. HMW Special Utility District of Harris, 438 S.W.3d 661 (Tex. Ct. App. 2014) (holding that a neighboring ...
-
Entertainment Law and Business
By William D. Henslee, Elizabeth HensleeAfter Justin Timberlake exposed Janet Jackson's pierced nipple on national television for 9/16ths of a second, the FCC received over 540,000 complaints.
-
The Common Law in Colonial America: Volume III: The Chesapeake and New England, 1660-1750
By William E. NelsonVolume III: The Chesapeake and New England, 1660-1750 William E. Nelson ... Decision of Law, Surry County Ct. 1673/74, in Eliza Timberlake Davis ed., ...
-
The Indiana State Constitution
By William P. McLauchlanE. Edwards v. California, 314 U.S. 160 (1941), 66 Edwards v. Housing Authority of City of ... Timberlake, 148 Ind. 38,46 N.E.339 (1897), 69,70 Graves v.
-
Child Support Guidelines: Interpretation and Application
By Laura W. MorganFitzgerald, 4.08[B][2], 5.05[D] Fitzgerald v. ... Mastrapa-Font, 7.03[A][3] Fontaine, In re, 5.05[D] Fontenette v. ... Frost, 5.05[A] Formato v.
-
Maritime Fraud and Piracy
By Paul ToddThe sole remedy is avoidance, however; damages cannot be claimed under s. ... 17, it places a great deal of power in the hands of insurance companies to ...
-
Principles of the Carriage of Goods by Sea
By Paul ToddNormally, a mate«s receipt would later be given up for a bill of lading, ... they necessarily prejudice the rights of those who deal in the goods ...
-
Maryland Employment Law
By Stanley Mazaroff, Todd Horn27 257 U.S. 184, 42 S. Ct. 72, 66 L. Ed. 189 (1921). ... 38 Argensinger, “Right to Strike”: Labor Organization and the New Deal in Baltimore, 78 MD . HIST .
-
Contract Law in New Zealand
By Stephen Todd, Jeremy Finn704 Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017, s. 80. 705 Leith v. Gould [1986] 1 NZLR 760. It is not clear how a New Zealand court would deal with a case such ...
-
Tort Law in New Zealand
By Stephen Todd... to meet the reasonable expectations of claimants about how the corporation should deal with them, by, inter alia, ... 7 Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975, s.