Morton v William Dixon, Ltd
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 19 March 1909 |
| Date | 19 March 1909 |
| Docket Number | No. 131. |
| Court | Court of Session |
Lord President, Lord M'Laren, Lord Kinnear, Lord Pearson, Lord Johnston.
Master and ServantNegligenceCoal MineFaulty System of WorkingFault of Omission.
A miner, who had been working in a mine, raised an action of damages against the mineowners, alleging that he bad been injured by a piece of coal falling between the cage and the side of the shaft, through the fault of the defenders in their having failed to provide protection against such accidents. The jury returned a verdict for the pursuer, and awarded damages. The Court granted a new trial on the ground that negligence on the part of the defenders had not been proved, and that the verdict was contrary to the evidence.
Observed (per the Lord President),Where the negligence of the employer consists of what I may call a fault of omission, I think it is absolutely necessary that the proof of that fault of omission should be one of two kinds, eitherto shew that the thing which he did not do was a thing which was commonly done by other persons in like circumstances, orto shew that it was a thing which was so obviously wanted that it would be folly in anyone to neglect to provide it.
Peter Morton, pit-bottomer, Hamilton, brought an action against his employers, William Dixon, Limited, coalmasters, Glasgow, claiming damages for personal injuries, which he alleged he had sustained on 21st October 1907 through the fault of the defenders.
The following narrative of the facts is taken from the opinion of the Lord President:
This is an action by a miner for reparation for injury caused to him by an accident which occurred in the course of his work. He was a bottomer in the pit, and it was his duty, as bottomer, to take part in the operation of removing the empty hutches from the cage and putting in full ones. The shaft in which he was engaged served a double purpose. It was the winding shaft for minerals and it was also the upcast shaft for ventilation. The winding operations were conducted by means of two cages, which in accordance with ordinary arrangements were alternately at the top or the bottomthat is to say, as one cage ascended the other descended, the ascending cage took up full hutches, and the descending cage brought down empty ones, and when the descending cage with its empty hutches arrived at the bottom the bottomer's duty was to loosen the little apparatus which kept the hutches in their place, push the hutches out of the cage, and then replace them with the already loaded hutches which were standing there. In order to perform that operation it was necessary that he should bend forward and that his head should always enter the cage, because his hands had to go in to catch hold of the hutch which was inside. In doing so his head and body were necessarily exposed to the space which is represented by the distance between the edge of the cage and the side of the shaft.
Now, his averment was that while he was doing that he was struck by a piece of coal which fell from the top of the shaft, a distance of 130 fathoms. His view of the way in which the piece of coal was loosened from the hutch and thrown down the shaft was that at the top of the shaft, which I have mentioned was the upcast shaft, there is a closed door necessary in order to allow for the ventilation being properly conducted, because just before the shaft reaches the upper surface there is a branch passage which leads to a fan, and that fan by sucking the air induces a current which comes up the upcast shaft. It is quite obvious that unless the top of the shaft proper was in some way sealed the fan would only suck in the air within the aperture of the upper shaft and would not ventilate the shaft at all; and it is necessary to have a sealed door, which it seems was locally known by the name of a policeman. Of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Aikbee Sawmill Ltd v Mun Kum Chow
- Malayan United Industrial Company Ltd; Wong Soon San
- Lew Thai v Chai Yee Chong
- Lew Thai v Chai Yee Chong