Hannah Senior, Administratrix of John Senior, against Ward
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 13 January 1859 |
| Date | 13 January 1859 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 120 E.R. 954
IN THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C. 28 L. J. Q. B. 139; 5 Jur. N. S. 172; 7 W. R. 261.
[389] hannah senior, Administratrix of John Senior, against ward. Thursday, January 13th, 1859. Where a servant is injured or killed while in the employ of his master, by an accident resulting from the habitual negligence of his fellow servants, known and acquiesced in by the master, the master is not liable to an action by the servant, or, if he be killed, by his representative, if the servant has by his own negligence at the time, in knowing and disregarding the danger, materially contributed to the accident. - Unless there be such contributory negligence by the servant, the master is liable. - Defendant, proprietor and manager of a colliery, published, under stat. 18 & 19 Viet. c. 108, special rules, one of which provided for the testing, each day, in a particular manner, the rope by which the pitmen descended, This rule was, to defendant's knowledge, habitually violated by the banksman and others whose duty it was to carry it out. S., a pitman in defendant's employ, who knew of the rule and of its habitual violation, refused, though advised by the banksman, to examine the rope (which had been accidentally injured the night before, and not tested since), before descending by it into the pit. The rope broke, and S. was killed. - In an action by S.'s administratrix, - Held, that defendant was not liable. [S. C. 28 L. J. Q. B. 139 ; 5 Jur. N. S. 172 ; 7 W. R. 261.] Declaration by Hannah Senior, administratrix of John Senior : For that, on 6th January, 1858, and after the coming into operation of stat. 18 & 19 Viet. c. 108, entitled " An Act to amend the law for the inspection of coal mines in Great Britain," defendant was the proprietor and manager of a coal mine, then being in his care and direction, and so continued until &c., the time of the committing &c. : that the said Johu Senior was a servant of defendant in the working of his said mine ; nevertheless, by the wrongful act, omission, neglect and default of defendant, and not otherwise, a rope of defendant, in his use, and by the aid of which the said John Senior was, in the course of his said service, and with the privity and authority of defendant, being lowered into the said mine to work there for defendant, without any default of the said John Senior, suddenly snapped and broke asunder, the same having become and then being unsafe and unfit for such use; whereby, and not otherwise, the said John Senior, who neither knew, nor had the means of knowing at any [386] time, that the aaid rope was so unfit or unsafe, was suddenly thrown and fell down into the said mine, and was thereby so greatly injured that he afterwards, and within twelve calendar months before this suit, thereof died. Pleas : 1. Not guilty. 2. That defendant was not manager of the said coal mine, nor was the same, nor did the same continue to be, then under his care and direction as alleged. Issue on both pleas. At the trial, before Cockburn C.J., at the last Summer Assizes for Derbyshire, it appeared that the action was brought, under stat. 9 & 10 Viet. c. 93, by the plaintiff, a widow, to recover damages for the death of her son, John Senior, who was accidentally killed while in the employ of the defendant. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Morgan v The Vale of Neath Railway Company
...the accident engaged in one common object 1 [Bramwell B-But does not that mean a common immediate employment 1] Yes. In Senior v. Ward (1 E. & E. 385) Lord Campbell, in delivering the judgment of the Court, p. 391, said that according to the authorities collected and commented upon in The B......
-
Smily v The Glasgow and Londonderry Steampacket Company
...27 L. J. Exch. 249. Williams v. CloughENR 3 H. & N. 258, 325. Roberts v. SmythENRENR 2 H. & N. 213; 11 C. B. N. S. 429. Senior v. WardENR 1 E. & E. 385. Searle v. LindsayUNKENR 31 L. J. C. P. 106; 11 C. B. N. S. 429. Brown v. Accrington Cotton CompanyENR 3 H. & C. 511; 14 L. J. Exch. 208. N......
-
Clarke, Appellant v Holmes, Respondent
...service unless the machinery was fenced, but, rather than give up his employment, he was willing to incur the risk In Senun v Ward (1 E & E. 385) there was habitual negligence on the part of the master, but tie proximate cause of the injury was the pitman's refusal to test the tope , here t......
-
Holmes v Clarke
...J., were of opinion that the imposition of a penalty did not deprive the paity injured of his right to sue for damages.] Senwr v. War A (1 E. & E. 385) is an authority that the master is not liable, if the servant, by his own negligence in knowing and disregarding the danger, has materially......