Sarah Wiggett, Administratrix of John Wiggett, Deceased v Fox & Henderson
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 23 February 1856 |
| Date | 23 February 1856 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 156 E.R. 1069
IN THE COURTS OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C. 25 L. J. Ex. 188; 4 W. R. 254 Considered, Abraham v Reynolds, 1860, 5 H. & N. 143. Distinguished, Turner v. Great Eastern Railway, 1875, 33 L. T. 431. Not applied, Rourke v White Moss Colliery Company, 1877, 2 C. P D 208, Charles v. Taylor, 1878, 3 C. P. D. 494, thrussell v. Handyside, 1888, 20 Q B. D. 366. Explained, Johnson v. Lindsay, [1891] A. C. 371. Referred to, Degg v Midland Railway, 1857, 1 H. & N 780, Swamson v. North Eastern Railway, 1878, 3 Ex. D. 343; Cooper and Crane v. Wright, [1902] A. C. 302.
sarah wiggett, Administratrix of John Wiggett, Deceased v. Fox & henderson. Feb. 23, 1856 -The defendants, having contracted with the Crystal Palace Company to erect a tower, manufactured the materials, and made a sub-contract with M and other persons to do by "piece work" particular portions of the hoisting and fixing the materials, the scaffolding and tools being provided by the defendants. The workmen employed by the sub-contractors were paid weekly by the defendants according to the time they worked, an account of which was kept by the defendants' foreman M , the sub-contractor, employed W, the plaintiff's husband; and whilst he was at work at the bottom of the tower, the defendants' men, who were at work at the top, negligently let fall an instrument called a "rymer," which struck the plaintiffs husband on the head, and caused his death . - Held, that the sub-contractor and his workmen were servants of the defendants, engaged in one common employment with then 1070 WIGGETT l\ FOX 11 EX 833. other servants, and consequently, that the defendants were not liable under the 9 & 10 Viet c. 93, for the injury caused by the negligence of the latter. [S. C. 25 L. J. Ex. 188; 4 W. R. 254 Considered, Abiaham v Reynold, I860, 5 H. & N. 143. Distinguished, Tuiim v. Great -Eastern Railway, 1875, 33 L. T. 4.31. Not applied, Rourle v JJHute Most Colliery Company, 1877, 2 C. P D 208, Chatles v. Taylor, 1878, 3 C. P. D. 494, Thiussell v. Handy&ide, 1888, 20 Q B. D. 366. Explained, Johnson v. Lindsay, [1891] A. C. 371. Referred to, Degg v Midland Railway, 1857, 1 H. & N 780", Swammi v. Nmth East&in Railway, 1878, 3 Ex. D. 343; Cooper and Crane v. Wright, [1902] A. C. 302.] The declaration stated, that the defendants, by themselves and their servants, were erecting a certain tower in and upon certain land belonging to the Crystal Palace Company; and it then became and was the duty of the defendants to erect the said tower in a careful and pioper manner, and to take proper precaution against any injury happening to persons who should pass by or near to the said tower, whilst the same was being so erected : Yet the defendants did not regard their duty in that behalf, but by themselves and theii servants, negligently, carelessly, and improperly dropped from the said tower a certain heavy instrument, called a rymer, whereby the same lell upon, struck, and killed the said John Wiggett, deceased, who was the husband of the pfeintiff, and who then was lawfully passing by and near to the said tower Plea (inter alia)-That the said grievance was committed by certain servants of the defendants, to wit, the servants in the declaration mentioned, and solely by their negligence, and aot by the negligence of the defendants personally, or [833] either of them, and was committed without the authority, knowledge, sanction, or consent of the defendants or either of them; and that such...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Huddart Parker Ltd v Coiter
-
Morgan v The Vale of Neath Railway Company
...Stony-Brook Railroad Corporation (10 Cush. 228), cited in Mauley Smith's Law of Master and Servant, 2nd ed., pp. 136, 145; Wigget v. Fox (11 Exch. 832, 835, 6, 7), per Pollock C.B. and Alderson B.; Vose v. The, Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Company (2 H. & N. 728, 734), where the Court o......
-
Hoey v Dublin and Belfast Junction Railway Company
...v. YeatesENR 2 H. & N. 770. Hutchinson v. Yorkshire Railway CompanyENR 5 Ex. 343. Priestly v. FowlerENR 3 M. & W. 6. Wiggett v. FoxENR 11 Ex. 832. Morgan v. Vale of Neath Railway CompanyUNKELR 33 L. J. Q. B. 260; in Ex. Ch. L. R. 1 Q. B. 149. M'Eniry v. Waterford Railway CompanyUNK 8 Ir. C.......
-
Mellors against Shaw and Unwin
...v. Fowler; the servant enters the service with a knowledge that he incurs that risk; Wigmore v. Jay (5 Exch. 354), Wigget v. Fox (11 Exch. 832). In Tarra.nl v. Webb (18 C. B. 797), an exception to the rule was introduced where the master was guilty of want of care in the selection of proper......