Bell v Blackwood Morton & Sons Ltd
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 22 October 1959 |
| Date | 22 October 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. 4. |
| Court | Court of Session (Inner House - First Division) |
1ST DIVISION.
ReparationNegligenceMaster and ServantVicarious liabilityLiability of master for fault of fellow servantScope of fellow servant's employmentJostling by servants rushing down factory stairs after end of day's workWhether within scope of employment.
A woman in the employment of a firm of carpet manufacturers brought an action of damages against her employers for injury caused by the carelessness of a fellow employee, who jostled her, while they and a number of other fellow employees were coming down a stairway in the employer's factory. The accident occurred after the hooter had sounded to signalise the end of the day's work, and the employees concerned were leaving the factory premises to go home. The factory building had eight floors, and there was only one stairway available for the use of the large number of employees who worked on the various floors. It was common practice for employees to rush down this stairway in order that they might be successful in getting seats on the special buses which were waiting at the factory gates to take them home. The employers had put up notices at various points on the stairway, which read, "Safety First : Do Not Rush Downstairs." In addition, they had issued regulations which provided for the suspension or dismissal of employees who, inter alia, rushed down the stairs, and their works manager and his assistant supervised the descent of the stairway from time to time.
Held that the employees of the firm were still within the scope of their employment when on the stairway for the purpose of leaving the factory, and that, accordingly, the employers were vicariously responsible for the negligence which was the cause of the injury to the pursuer.
Mrs Margaret Raeside Or Bell brought an action against Blackwood Morton & Sons, Limited, her employers, in which she claimed damages for injuries sustained by her in the course of her employment when she was injured while coming down a stair in the defenders factory on her way out after finishing her day's work.
The following summary of the facts is taken from the opinion of the Lord President :"The case which the pursuer makes in her evidence is that she was employed on the day of the accident on the sixth floor of the defenders factory. The access for the employees to that floor was a staircase which connected with all eight floors in the building and which terminated in a vestibule, from which there was an access to the yard, and from it through the factory gates to the public street. When the works hooter went at about 5.45 in the afternoon, at the end of the working day, the doors of the various working floors were opened, and the employees, who were congregating at these doors in readiness for the hooter, came out on to the staircase at each floor level. On the day in question, the pursuer emerged on to the stairway and was proceeding down it, holding on to the bannister, when she was jostled by a fellow employee, hurrying down the stairway past her, in order to secure a seat on one of the buses waiting at the factory gates to convey the employees home. The jostle was violent enough to swing her round and cause her to fall and sustain the injuries for which she now claims damages."
The parties averred, inter alia:(Cond. 3) "The said accident was caused by the fault and negligence of the defenders. It was the defenders duty to take reasonable care for the safety of their employees while they were on the defenders premises and going to or coming from their actual place of work. The said staircase was the only means by which the pursuer could leave her place of work on the sixth floor and make her way out of the defenders premises. It was, every day, at the time when work ceased for the day, overcrowded with large numbers of the defenders employees who rushed quickly and wildly down the said staircase. When descending the said staircase at the said time the pursuer was therefore always exposed to the considerable danger of being violently jostled or pushed aside or crushed or kicked by the defenders said employees. The defenders were or should have been well aware of the said overcrowding which occurred so regularly on the said staircase and of the resultant dangers to their employees such as the pursuer. It was therefore their duty to take all reasonable steps necessary for the removal of the said danger. They could and should have removed the said danger (b)by so phasing the ceasing of work on the various floors that the staircase was never dangerously overcrowded; or (c) by appointing persons with authority to regulate and control the numbers using the said staircase so as to prevent overcrowding thereon. The defenders took no steps whatsoever to remove or diminish the said danger which they were well aware existed, although such steps were obviously necessary for the protection of their employees, having regard to the whole circumstances and the previous history of accidents to the defenders employees while descending the said staircase when work ceased. Had they performed the duties incumbent upon them the said accident to the pursuer would not have happened." (Ans. 3) "Admitted that certain common law duties were incumbent upon the defenders. Explained and averred under reference to answer 2 that they fulfilled all duties incumbent upon them in the circumstances. Quoad ultra denied." (Cond. 4) "Further and alternatively the said accident was caused by the fault and negligence of the defenders servants who jostled the pursuer on the said staircase and so caused her to miss her footing and stumble. While descending the said staircase within the defenders...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
David Sharp V. Highland And Isalnds Fire Board+steven Mclean
...cases of Short v J & W Henderson Ltd 1946 SC (HL) 24, Kirby v National Coal Board 1958 SC 514 and Bell v Blackwood Morton & Sons Ltd 1960 SC 11. Reference was briefly made to Waldie v Glasgow Corporation 1954 SC 47 and Lothian and Borders Police Board v Ward 2004 SC 627. Counsel pointed out......
-
Tam Kam Fai v Michael J Design Ltd And Others
...of the work period, see Clerk & Lindsell on Torts, 19th edition, paragraph 13-02 and the Scottish case of Bell v Blackwood Morton & Sons, 1960 S.C. 11 where the pursuer was injured while she was leaving her place of work on the 6th floor via a staircase to go home after the end of the work ......
-
Jean Methven V. Babygro Limited
...that such proximity was essential if liability were to exist. It was accepted, under reference to Bell v. Blackwood Morton & Sons, 1960 S.C. 11, that an employer's duty of care to his employees might extend to events beyond the working day. It was further accepted that an employer's duty of......