Holmes v Clarke
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 12 January 1861 |
| Date | 12 January 1861 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 158 E.R. 144
IN THE COURT OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C. 30 L. J Ex. 135; 7 Jur. (N. S.) 397; 9 W. R. 419; 3 L. T. 675: affirmed 1862, 7 H. & N. 937.
holmes v. CLARKE Jan 12, 1861.-Where machinery is required by statute to be fenced, and a servant enters into the employment of the owner whilst it is protected, and continues in the service after the protection is removed by decay or otherwise, but complains of the danger and is promised, that the protection shall be restored, the master is liable for injury to the servant arising from the want of such protection. [S. C. 30 L. J Ex. 135; 7 Jur. (N. S.) 397; 9 W. E. 419; 3 L. T. 675 : affirmed 1862, 7 H. & N. 937.] Declaration. That after the passing and coming into operation of the act of parliament passed in the year 1844\ intituled "An Act to amend the laws relating to labour in factories," and of "The Factory Act, 1856," and before and at the time of the committing of the grievances and the sustaining by the plaintiff of the injury hereinafter mentioned, the defendant was the occupier of a building situate in Great Britain, to wit, in the city of Manchester, wherein the defendant carried on the business of a cotton-spinner, and wherein in carrying on, and for the purposes of the said business, a steam-engine producing steam-power was used to move and work machrnery employed in preparing and manufacturing cotton, and in the process incident to the manufacture of cotton, the said building being a factory within the 6E&N350 HOLMES 'P.CLARKE 145 meaning of the said statutes, and in part of the said building a certain mill-gearing, being mill-gearing within the meaning of the said statutes, was before [350] and at the sdd time of the said grievances and injury worked and put in motion, and was in motion, by the steam-engine and the power thereof for the put pose of the said manufacture and process, the said part of the said building not being a part or place which, by the 73rd section of the first mentioned Act, or otherwise, is declaied to be a part of the factory or place to which the enactment of the said 73rd section, or the definition of the word " factory " is riot to extend. And before and at the aaid time the said building, mill-gearing and steam-engine and power were under the care, management and direction of the defendant; and the said mill-gearing was such as ought, according to the said statutes, to l e secuiely fenced at the said time; and the same was mill-gearing with which children and young peisons, within the meaning of the said Act, and women, were liable, within the meaning of the said Act, to come in contact And the plaintiff befoie and at the said time was lawfully in the said part of the said factory with the consent of the defendant, Yet the defendant, after the 1st day of June, AD. 1856, and before this suit, disregarded his duty and the eaid statutes, and did not securely fence the said mill-gearing, nor was the same securely fenced, contrary to the said statutes, whereby, after the said last mentioned day and before this suit, the clothes of the plaintiff' were caught by certain parts of the said mill-gearing so in motion for the purpose afoiesaid, and the plaintiff was drawn in and to the same and dragged about, and one of his arms was broken and torn off, and he received other great in Junes and was put to very great suffering, and sustained great cost in and about getting medical and other attendance and necessaries. Pleas. First Not guilty. Secondly That before and at the time of the committing of the[alleged grievances and of the sustaining by the plaintiff of the injury in the declaration mentioned, the plaintiff [351] was a servant of the defendant, employed by the defendant as such to worit for the defendant in his said business in the said factory, for reward to the plaintiff in that behalf, and the plaintiff was upwards of twenty-one yeais of age, and well knew that the said mill-gearing was not secuiely fenced as aforesaid , and the said clothes of the plaintiff were caught by the said paits of the said mill-gearing...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Morgan v The Vale of Neath Railway Company
...him." [He also cited Waller v. The South Eastern Railway Company (2 H. & C. 102), per Pollock C.B., pp. 104-5, and Holmes v. Clarice (6 H. & N. 349 ; affirmed on appeal, 7 H. & N. 937), per Pollock C.B., pp. 356-7.] In Searle v. Lindsay (11 C. B. N. S. 429) the third engineer of a steam ves......
-
Smily v The Glasgow and Londonderry Steampacket Company
...3 M. & W. 1. Dynen v. Leach 26 L. R. Ex. 221. Vaughan v. Cork and Youghal Railway CompanyUNK 12 Ir. C. L. R. 297. Holmes v. ClarkeENRENR 6 H. & N. 349; 30 L. J. Exch. 135; S. C. in Ex. Ch. 7 H. & N. 937; 31 L. J. Exch. 356. Potts v. PlunkettUNK 9 Ir. C. L. R. 290. Mƒ€™Kinney v. Irish N......
-
Hoey v Dublin and Belfast Junction Railway Company
...v. Waterford Railway CompanyUNK 8 Ir. C. L. R. 312. Tunney v. Midland Railway CompanyELR L. R. 1 C. P. 291. Holmes v. ClarkeENRENR 6 H. & N. 349; 7 H. & N. 936. Davis v. EnglandUNK 33 L. J. Q. B. 321. Williams v. CloughENR 3 H. & N. 258. Vose v. Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway CompanyENR 2......
-
M'Kinney v The Irish North-Western Railway Company
...v. StanwnENRUNK3 E. & E. 701; 30 L. J. Q. B. 183. Mellors v. ShawUNK1B. & S. 437; 30 L. J. Q. B. 333. Holmes v. ClarkeENRENRUNKUNK6 H. & N. 349; 7 H. & N. 937; 30 L. J. Ex. 135; 31 L. J. Ex. 356. Roberts v. SmithENRUNK2 H. & N. 213; 26 L. J. Ex. 319. Priestley v. FowlerENRUNK3 M. & W. 19; 7......