Mellors against Shaw and Unwin
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 21 June 1861 |
| Date | 21 June 1861 |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 121 E.R. 778
IN THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER.
S. C. 30 L. J. Q. B. 33; 7 Jur. N. S. 845; 9 W. R. 748; Referred to, Watling v. Oastler, 1871, L. R. 6 Ex. 78. Applied, Britton v. Great Western Cotton Company, 1872, L. R. 7 Ex. 138. Referred to, Williams v. Birmingham Battery Company, [1899] 2 Q. B. 343.
778 MELLORS V. SHAW 1 B; & 8.437. [437] helloes against shaw and unwin. Friday, June 21st, 1861.-Master and servant. Negligence of master. Partners. Joint liability. Scintilla of evidence.-Declaration stated that defendants were owners of a coal mine, and plaintiff was employed by defendants as a collier in the mine, and in the course of his employment it was necessary for him to descend and ascend through a abaft constructed by defendants; that by the negligence of defendants the shaft wa* constructed unsafely, and was, by reason of not being sufficiently lined or cased, in an unsafe condition, which defendants well knew: and by reason of the premises, and also by reason, as defendants well knew, of no sufficient or proper apparatus having been provided by defendants to protect plaintiff from injuries arising from the unsafe state of the shaft, a stone fell from the side of the shaft on the head of the plaintiff, and he was dangerously wounded. Plea, not guilty. At the trial it was proved that S., one of the two defendants, was manager of the mine, and that it was worked under his personal superintendence ; and that the plaintiff was not aware of the state of the shaft. The jury found that the defendants were guilty of personal negligence. Held,-1. On motion to enter a nonsuit, that on this finding of the jury S. was liable, and therefore the other defendant was liable also. 2. On motion in arrest of judgment that the declaration must be taken to allege personal knowledge in the defendants of the state of the shaft, and therefore the action was maintainable.-3. Per Crompton J. The doctrine that if there is only a scintilla of evidence for the jury the verdict of the jury is not to be disturbed, is now exploded. [S. C. 30 L. J. Q. B. 333 ; 7 Jur. N. S. 845; 9 W. E. 748; Referred to, Wailing v. Oastler, 1871, L. R, 6 Ex. 78. Applied, Britt&n v. Great Western Cotton Company, 1872, L. R. 7 Ex. 138. Referred to, Williams v. Birmingham Battery Company, [1899] 2 Q. B. 343.] The declaration stated that the defendants, at the time of the committing of the grievances thereinafter mentioned, were the owners of a certain coal mine, and the plaintiff was employed by the defendants as a collier, to do certain work for the defendants in the said mine, and in the course of his employment it was necessary for him to descend into the said mine, and ascend therefrom, through a certain shaft of the said mine, alto constructed by the defendants. It then alleged that, by the negligence and fault of the defendants, the shaft was constructed unsafely, and in a defective and improper manner, and was, by reason of not being sufficiently lined or cased, in an unsafe and unfit condition for being used for the purpose aforesaid, which the defendants well knew; and by reason of the [438] premises, and also by reason, as the defendants well knew, of no sufficient or proper apparatus having been provided by the defendants to protect the plaintiff while so employed by them, in the mine as aforesaid, from injuries arising from the unsafe state of the shaft, while the plaintiff waa in the course of his employment, ascending the shaft, a large stone fell from the side of the shaft on the head of the plaintiff, and thereby the plaintiff was dangerously wounded, &o. Plea, not guilty. On the trial, before Keating J., at the Lent Assizes for Yorkshire in 1861, it appeared that the plaintiff, at the time of the accident, was a pitman in the employment of the defendants, who were owners of a colliery at Brightside, near Sheffield. The defendant Shaw was the manager of the colliery, and it was worked under his personal superintendence. The shaft in which the injury was received by the plaintiff had been sunk about six years, and, until June 1859, it had been used as an air shaft, with fire at the bottom, for causing a draught upwards: it was then converted into, and at the time...
To continue reading
Request your trial