Roberts v Smith and Another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 13 May 1857 |
| Date | 13 May 1857 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 157 E.R. 89
IN THE EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
s. c. 26 l. j. Ex. 319; 3 Jur. (N. S.) 469, 5 W. R. 581. Referred to, Griffiths v Gullow, 1858, 3 H. & N. 654; Fowler v. Lock, 1872, L. R. 7 C. P. 286.
in the exchequer chamber (Appeal from the Court of Exchequer ) koberts v smith and another. May 13, 1857-A declaration stated that the plaintiff', a bricklayer, entered into the service of the defendants upon the terms thafc they should take and use all due, reasonable and proper1 means and precautions in order to prevent accident, damage or injury, or unreasonable or unnecessary risk, or damage from happening or occurring to the plaintiff' in the performance of his duty as such servant, that the defendants did not take such reasonable precautions, and by reason thereof, and of the neglect of duty of the defendants, the plaintiff was employed on a scaffold which, for want of such precautions, was rotten and unsafe, which the defendants knew, and whereof the plaintiff* was wholly ignorant, arid in consequence thereof a part of the scaffold broke and the plaintiff fell to the ground Pleas. First Not guilty. Second . Traverse of employment on the terms alleged. At the trial, it was proved that the defendants had employed a labourer to erect the scaffold. The materials for the scaffold were in bad condition. The labourer broke several of the putlogs in trying them One of the defendants told him to break no more, that the putlogs would do very well. The labourer used such as he thought sound One of the putlogs so used having given way the scaffold fell, and the plaintiff was injured. On this evidence, the Judge at the trial directed a nonsuit. Held, on appeal to the Court of Exchequer Chamber, that there was evidence to go to the jury of the liability of the defendants. [S. C. 26 L. J. Ex. 319 ; 3 Jur. (N. S.) 469 , 5 W K. 581. Keferred to, Griffiths v. Gtdlow, 1858, 3 H. & N 654; Fowler v. Lock, 1872, L. E. 7 C. P. 286 ] Declaration. That before and until and at the time of the plaintiff's entenng into the service of the defendants and of the committing of the grievances, &c., the defendants 90 ROBERTS V. SMITH 2 H. & N 214. carried on the business of builders, and [214] the plaintiff, being a bricklayer, entered into the service of the defendants in the way of their trade upon the teims and conditions, amongst others, that the defendants should take and use all due, reasonable and proper means and precautions in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smily v The Glasgow and Londonderry Steampacket Company
...and Yorkshire Railway CompanyENR 2 H. & N. 728; 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......
-
M'Kinney v The Irish North-Western Railway Company
...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 L. J. Ex. 42. Potts v. PlunkettUNK9 Ir. C. L. R. 290. Waller v. South-Eastern Rai......
-
Mellors against Shaw and Unwin
...M. & W. 1), the allegation that the accident was caused by the negligence of the defendants would not be supported. In Roberts v. Smith (2 H. & N. 213), where the Exchequer Chamber held that there was evidence to go to the jury that the accident was caused by the negligence of the defendant......
-
Clarke, Appellant v Holmes, Respondent
...the master knew it was unsafe, if the servant had the same means of knowledge William* v. Clouyh (3 H. & N. 258). In Roberts v Smith (2 H & N. 213) it'was assumed that mere knowledge on the part of the master that the scaffold was unsafe, would not render ham liable, and the new trial was g......