Tarrant v Webb
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 18 June 1856 |
| Date | 18 June 1856 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 139 E.R. 1585
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, AND IN THE EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C. 25 L. J. C. P. 261; 4 W. R. 640. See Wilson v Merry, 1868, L. R. 1 H. L., Sc. 332.
18 c. b. 797. tare ant v. webb 1585 [797] cases argued and determined in the court of common pleas, and in the exchequer chamber, in trinity vacation, in the nineteenth and twentieth years of the beign of victoria. The Judges in attendance were,-Jervis, C. J., Cresswell, J., and Williams. J. tarrant v. webb. June 18, 1856. [S. C. 25 L. J. C. P. 261; 4 W. E. 640. See Wilsm v. Merry, 1868, L. E. 1 H. L., Sc. 332.] A master is not generally responsible for an injury to a servant from the negligence of a fellow-servant: but that rule is subject to this qualification, that the master uses reasonable care in the selection of the servant.-The plaintiff, a painter in the employ of the defendant, sustained an injury from the failure of a scaffolding upon which he was working, and which had been erected by another servant of the defendant. In leaving the case to the jury, the judge told them, that, if they were of opinion that the scaffolding was erected under the personal direction and interference of the defendant, and was insufficient, or that the person employed by the defendant for the purpose of erecting it was an incompetent person, the plaintiff was entitled to recover :-Held, a misdirection. This was an action brought by the plaintiff, a workman, to recover damages for an injury sustained by him from the falling of a scaffolding on which he was working in the employ of the defendant, a house decorator. The declaration stated that the plaintiff was employed [798] by the defendant to do certain work for the defendant on a scaffolding erected by the defendant for that purpose; yet that the defendant so carelessly, negligently, and improperly erected the said scaffolding, and employed the plaintiff to work thereon, that, by reason of the negligence, carelessness, and improper conduct of the defendant, the plaintiff was exposed to unreasonable risk in his said work, and the said scaffolding gave way, and the said plaintiff was: thrown therefrom and seriously injured, and became and was, and still continued, unable to follow his trade as a painter, and had been and was otherwise damnified. And the plaintiff claimed 2001. The defendant pleaded not guilty, whereupon issue was joined. The cause was tried before Crowder, J., at the second sitting at Westminster in Trinity Term last. The facts were as follows:-The defendant was employed to decorate the Carlton Club-house. In order to paint the entrance hall, a scaffolding was erected about thirty feet high, upon which the plaintiff and four other journeymen were at work. This scaffolding having been insecurely built, one of the upper poles broke, and the plaintiff was precipitated to the pavement below, and severely injured. The scaffolding was erected by one Martin, who was employed for that purpose by the defendant,-the defendant himself not interfering with it, except that, when Martin told him that the painters said it wanted an additional upright in the centre to make it secure, the defendant observed, that, if he (Martin) hearkened to the painters, he would have nothing else to do...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
English v Wilsons and Clyde Coal Company [2ND DIVISION.]
...Macq. 266. 57 1 D. 493. 53 3 Macq. 300. 59 1 D. 493. 62 6 Macph. (H. L.) 84, L. R., 1 H. L. Sc. 326. 58 (1856) 25 L. J. (N.S.) C. P. 261, 18 C. B. 797. 61 [1891] A. C. 325. 65 1 D. 493. 66 3 Macq. 300. 60 3 Macq. 266, at pp. 289–290. 64 3 Macq. 300, at p. 310. 67 4 Macq. 226. 71 1924 S. C. ......
-
Smily v The Glasgow and Londonderry Steampacket Company
...v. Gidlow 3 . & N. 648. Fetham v. EnglandELRENR L. R. 2 Q. B. 33; 4 F. & F. 460. Dynen v. Leach 26 L. J. Exch. 221. Tarrant v. WebbENR 18 C. B. 797. Ashworth v. StanwixUNKENR 30 L. J. Q. B. 183; 3 E. & E. 701. Mellor v. ShawENRUNK 1 B. & S. 437; 30 L. J. Q. B. 333. Holmes v. ClarkeENRENR 6 ......
-
Hoey v Dublin and Belfast Junction Railway Company
...Ir. Jur. N. S. 228; in Ex. Ch. Ir. R. 2 C. L. 600. Potts v. PlunketUNK 9 Ir. C. L. 290. Couch v. SteelENR 3 E. & B. 402. Tarant v. WebbENR 18 C. B. 797. Dillon v. LeechUNK 26 L. J. Ex. 221. Grffiths v. GedlowENR 3 H. & N. 648. Assop v. YeatesENR 2 H. & N. 770. Hutchinson v. Yorkshire Railwa......
-
Mellors against Shaw and Unwin
...the ground that there appeared to have been evidence of " the personal interference and negligence of the master." In Tarrant v. Webb (18 C. B. 797), the Judges said that want of care in the selection of competent servants would be one instance of negligence. The same law is laid down in Or......