Scott v the London and St Katherine Docks Company

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date07 February 1865
Date07 February 1865
CourtExchequer

English Reports Citation: 159 E.R. 665

IN THE EXCHEQUER CHAMBER.

Scott
and
The London and St. Katherine Docks Company

S. C. 34 L. J. Ex. 220; 11 Jur. (N. S.) 204; 13 W R. 410, 13 L. T 148. Distinguished, Higgs v. Maynard, 1866, 1 H. & R. 581 Followed, Briggs v Oliver, 1866, 4 H. & C. 403. Adopted, Smith v. Great Eastern Railway, 1866, L. R. 2 C. P. 11. Distinguished, Moffatt v. Bateman, 1869, L R 3 P C. 115, 6 Moore, P. C. (N. S.) 369, Bridges v. North London Railway, 1871, L. R. 6 Q B. 391: reversed 1874, L. R 7 H. L. 213, Manzoni v. Douglas, 1880, 6 Q. B. D. 151; Crisp v. Thomas, 1890, 63 L. T. 811. Referred to, Travers v. Cooper, [1914] 1 K. B. 78.

mine in proper order for mining operations. On the contrary, it appears by the evidence that the mine had been worked in the ordinary course for the last six years. In taking coal from the bed, the roof would necessarily from time to time require propping and the injury was caused by the underlooker delaying for one day to prop the roof after he was informed by the plaintiff that the stone was dangerous. We have come to the conclusion that the underlooker, whose duty it was to prop up tie roof of the mine, and the [595] plaintiff were fellow labourers ; so that the case falls within the principle established not only in this country, but also in Scotland, Ireland and America, that a servant, when he engages to serve a master, undertakes as between himself and his master to run all the ordinary risks of the service, including negligence oit the part of a fellow servant, when he is acting in the discharge of his duty as servant of him who is the common master of both The cases on the subject are collected with skill and clearness in Smith's Law of Master and Servant (page 144, and ed ). When it. can he properly predicated that there is the exact relation of fellow labourers is a question of great nicety and difficulty. My brother Williams brought the idea into prominent relief by saying that at times a fellow labourer should be considered as standing in the position of a deputy master, and that if there was negligence on his part whilst in that position the real master would be responsible. That question, however, does not arise in this case. We think that the plaintiff and the underlooker were fellow labourers, and that the latter was not in the position of a deputy master for whose negligence the mine owners are responsible. We are therefore of opinion that the direction of my brother Blackburn was right, and the judgment of the Court below must be affirmed. Judgment affirmed.(b) [596] 1 THE EXCHEQUnR CHAMBER 27 2. 31 (Appeal from the Court of Exchequer.) 44. 1 Xh 13..i* dUls-..j.a a 0_ is4t 4/33,1; a 41_ SCOTT v. THE LONDON AND ST. KATHERINE DOCKS COMPANY. Feb. 7, 1865. Held, in the Exchequer Chamber, that in an action for personal injury caused by the alleged negligence of the defendant, the plaintiff must adduce reasonable evidence of negligence to warrant the Judge in leaving the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
173 cases
  • Desmond Bennett v Jamaica Public Service Company Ltd and Another
    • Jamaica
    • Court of Appeal (Jamaica)
    • 19 July 2013
    ...caused it (see Osborn's Concise Law Dictionary 9 th Ed). 55 In one of the earlier reported cases addressing the point,Scott v The London and St Katherine Docks Company [1861-1873] All ER Rep 246 the court explained the principle thus: ‘But where the thing is shewn to be under the management......
  • Tesa Tape Asia Pacific Pte Ltd v Wing Seng Logistics Pte Ltd
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 3 May 2006
    ...Clerk & Lindsell ([5] supra) at 8-151 from the judgment of Erle CJ in Scott v The London and St Katherine Docks Company (1865) 3 H & C 596; 159 ER 665, as applying (1) the occurrence is such that it would not have happened without negligence and (2) the thing that inflicted the damage was u......
  • MA Clyde v Wong Ah Mei and Another
    • Malaysia
    • Federal Court (Malaysia)
    • Invalid date
  • Bee Hua Meng; Ooi Han Sun and Another
    • Malaysia
    • High Court (Malaysia)
    • 1 January 1991
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • Taking stock of res IPSA loquitur: reflections on its applicability to the unsuspecting occupier of premises
    • Caribbean Community
    • Caribbean Law Review No. 10-1, June 2000
    • 1 June 2000
    ...159 E.R. 299. 7 Christie v. Griggs (1809) 2 Camp. 79; 170 E.R. 1088. 8 Scott v. London and St. Katherine Docks Co. (1865) 3 H & C 596; 159 E.R. 665. 9 See, for instance, Holt v. Nesbitt [1951] O.R. 601 (C.A); [1953] 1 S.C.R. 143, discussed by G.H.L. Fridman in The Law of Torts in Canada 30 ......
  • Medical Negligence and the Nigerian National Health Insurance Scheme: Civil Liability, No-Fault or a Hybrid Model?
    • United Kingdom
    • Edinburgh University Press African Journal of International and Comparative Law No. , March 2010
    • 1 March 2010
    ...the Latin maxim, res ipsa loquitur, translated as ‘the thing speaks for itself’ (see Scott v. London & St. Kathrine Docks C. Docks Co. (1865) 159 E.R. 665, where the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was first established). Notably, the maxim first appeared in Byrne v. Boadle (1863) 9 LT 450. S......
  • Recent developments in the law of torts
    • Ireland
    • Irish Judicial Studies Journal No. 1-4, January 2004
    • 1 January 2004
    ...and Geoghegan JJ. 117 Supreme Court, unreported, 24 February 2003. 118 [1988] I.L.R.M. 629 (S.C.). 119 (1865) 3 H. & C. 596 at 601; 159 E.R. 665 at 667 120 For further criticism, see McMahon, B. and Binchy, W., Irish Law of Torts (3rd ed., Butterworths, Dublin, 2000), paras. 9.51-9.52. 121 ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT