Hutchinson, Administratrix of Joseph Hutchinson, Deceased v The York, Newcastle, and Berwick Railway Company
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 22 May 1850 |
| Date | 22 May 1850 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 155 E.R. 150
IN THE COURTS OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S C 6 Railw Cas 580, 19 L. J Ex 296, 14 Jur 837 Followed, Wigmore v. Jag, p 354, post Questioned, Morgan v. Vale of Neath Railway, 1864, 33 L J Q B 260 affirmed, L R 1 Q B 149 Applied, Swanson v North Eastern Railway, 1878, 3 Ex D 345, To cland v West Ham Union, [1906] 1 K B 543 Considered, The Petrel, [1893] P 320.
[3431 HtJTCHiNhON, Adnrrrustiatrix: of Joseph Elutchinson, Deceased e Tuti YoilK, 7y- newcastle, a\i bkkvvivk iuiiava\ company May, 11, M.'JO - A master is not responsrble to his servant for injury occasioned by the negligence of a fellow-servant Hi the course of then common employment, provided the l.ittei be a person of competent e.iie and skill - Therefore where a servant of a Railway Company, in discharge of his duty as sueh, was proceeding in a train under the guidance ol others of their servants, through whose negligence a collision took place, and he was killed -Held, that his repiesentatrve could rrot maintain an lotion against the Company under the ') & 10 vk t c 'J,5 , and th.it it made no difference in this respect whether the accident w is occasioned by the negligence of the servants guiding the train in which the deceased was, or of those guiding t)he other tram, or of both - A cleclaratron in an actron under the ') & 10 Viet e 93, stated that H was in the employ and service of the defendants, and that, in bhe discharge of hrs duty as such servant, be became a passerrger in a railway carriage of the defendants, drawn by a steam engrrre under the guidance of the defendants, to wit, by their servants, that the defendants weie possessed of another steam-engine, which then was drawing other railway carriages, and whrch was under the guidance of the defendants, to wit, by their servants, yet the defendants conducted themselves so negligently in and about the guidance of the first-mentioned engine and carriage, and also in and about the guidance of the other engine and carnages, that a collision took place, and H was theieby Urlled - Plea, that the collision took place solely through the negligeuoe of the servants of the defendants, and that the engines and carnage, at the time when $c , were respectively under the guidance of the servants of the defendants, who vfere fit and competent peisons to have the guidance of the same , arrd that the negligence was wholly unauthorised by the defendants, and without then leave, 5 EX 344. HUTCHINSON, V YORK NEWCASTLE, AND BERWICK RLY. CO. 151 licence, 01 knowledge -Held, on special demunei, that the plea did not amount to the general issue [H 0 6 Kailw Gas 580, 19 L J Ex 290, 14 Jut cS.i7 Followed, Jltymme v Jay, p J54, post Questioned, Monjait v I'aL of Nenth llndway, 1804, ,{J L J (.,), B 260 affirmed, L It I Q B 149 Applied, tiwainwn v Art/;M, Ea^tetn Itailway, 187S, .i Ex I) 'J45, To^laiulv Went Ham Union, [1906] 1 K B 54.5 Consideted, TAe /Wre?, [1H93] P 320 ] Case upon thestitute 9 & 10 Viet c 9J The declaiation stated, that wheteaa before and at the time of the committing of the gnevatices heieinaftei mentioned, and in the lifetime of Joseph Hutchinson, the said Joseph Hutchinson was in the employ and service of the defendants, and while in such service and employ, the said Joseph Hutchinson, at the temjest of the defendants, and in the dischatge of his duty as then servant, became and was a passengei in a certain lailway carnage of the defendants, it) and upon a cettain lailway of which the defendants wete then possessed, to go in and hy the said railway caniage fioin a ceit.un place, to wit, Viego Bank foot, to a certain other place, to wit, South Shields, which said railway caniage then was dtawn in and upon the said lailway by a ceitam locomotue steain-cngine, and the said steam-eligine and railway carnage then weie under the guidance, government, and direction of the defendants, to wit, by ceitam then servants of the defendants in that behalf And wheieas- also, before and at the time of the committing of the grievances hereinafter mentioned, and in the lifetime of the said Joseph Iliitchinson, the defendants were possessed of a mi tain othei locomotive [344] steam-engine, which was then cliawing- divers, to wit, ten other taihvay camages, in and upon the .said railway, and the said last-mentioned locomotive steam-engine and railway can lages then were nuclei the guidance, government, and duection of the defendants, to wit, by ceitam then servants of the defendants in that behalf, yet the defendants, well knowing the premrses, heretofoie and in the lifetime of the said Joseph Hutchinson, and after the passing of a ceitam Act of Parliament made and passed in the session of Parliament ttolderi in the ninth and tenth years...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Riddick v Thames Board Mills Ltd
... ... Robert Riddick had only been with the Company for about eighteen months. Previously since ... In Hutchinson v. York Railway. Co. (1850) 5 Exchequer at page ... ...
-
Wilsons and Clyde Coal Company v English
...reserved the question of an employer's obligations in respect of adequacy of plant and competence of fellow workmen. 30In Hutchinson v. York Newcastle and Berwick Ry., 5 Ex. 343, where the doctrine of common employment was first laid down in this country, Alderson B. said that the doctrine......
-
Morgan v The Vale of Neath Railway Company
...of the latter, an action is not maintainable against the master ; Hutchinson v. The York, Newcastle and Berwick Railiuay Company (5 Exch. 343), Waller v. The South Eastern Railway Cmnpany (2 H. & C. 102). But if the employment of the injured servant is so foreign to that in which the other ......
-
Chandran a/l Subbiah v Dockers Marine Pte Ltd
...Welding Co, Ltd and B & N Green & Silley Weir, Ltd [1946] 1 KB 302 (not folld) Hutchinson v The York, Newcastle, and Berwick Railway Co (1850) 5 Ex 343; 155 ER 150 (refd) Jenner v Allen West & Co Ltd [1959] 1 WLR 554 (refd) Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd v Fox [2009] HCA 35 (refd) M'Alister (......
-
STATUTE AND THEORIES OF VICARIOUS LIABILITY.
...and Edelman JJ) and the list of authorities cited therein. (39) See, eg, Hutchinson v The York, Newcastle & Berwick Railway Co (1850) 5 Ex 343; 155 ER 150, which highlights that the courts did not consistently apply the logic of the theory. After restating that the attribution of acts i......