Wigmore, Administratrix of Charles Wigmore, Deceased v Jay
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 22 May 1850 |
| Date | 22 May 1850 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 155 E.R. 155
IN THE COURTS OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S C 19 L J Ex 300, 14 Jur 837 Considered, Lovegrove v London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway, Gallagher v. Piper, 1864, 16 C B (N S) 683 Followed, Feltham v. England, 1866, L R 2 Q B 36 Adopred, Wilson v Merry, 1868, L R 1 H L (Sc) 338
[354] wigmore, Administratrix: of Charles Wigmoie, Deceased v jay May 22, 1850 - The defendant, a master builder, having contracted to build a certain building, employed W as a bricklayer '[he scaffolding was elected undei the super mtendence of the defendant's foreman, the defendant not being present, and was constructed by men in the employ of the defendant, who used an unsound ledgei pole, in consequence of which the scaffold broke while W was at work upon it, and he was thrown to the ground and killed The unsoundness of the pole had been prevrously pointed out to the foreman - Held, that no action could be maintained against the defendant under the 9 & 10 Vrict c 9J, there being no evidence that the foreman was an impropei person to employ for that purpose [H C 19 I, J Ex: 300, 14 Jur 837 Considered, Loveyiove v Lim/lon, Biu/liton, and Kuuth Coast Railway, GaUaghv v / , 18( 4, 1( c B (N H) b8.! Followed, Fdthamv Engluml, I860, L I{ 2 Q B 3d Adopted, Wilson v Afiniy, 1868, L R 1 H L (He ) J.i8 ] Case upon the statute 9 & 10 Viet c c).i The declaiation stated, that the defendant earned on the business of a builder, and was employed in the way of his business to build a certain building, to wit, a wing to "The London Univeisity " , and thereupon, the defendant, being such builder and so employed, did construct and erect, and from thence until the giving way and bieaking down of the same, kept and continued erected, a certarn scaffold foi the workmen and servants employed by him in the budding of the said building, and of whom the said C Wig mure was one, to carry on thereon and by means thereof the work of building the wall and othei parts of the building, and foi that purpose, and in the course of then employment, to be and continue upon the scaffolding with then tools, and wrth bucks, mortar, &c , at great heights above the ground , and thereupon it became arrd was the duty of the defendant to have arrd keep the scaffolding and every pait thereof constiucted of aound, saf^, and sufiiqient materials and poles, arrcl to take arid use due and propel care and skijl...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wilsons and Clyde Coal Company v English
...their conclusion on a number of cases in which the negligence was that of those who were fellow servants, however exalted their grade. Wigmore v. Jay, 5 Ex. 354, which was strongly relied on by Scrutton L.J. at p. 320, was I think such a case. The use of the defective scaffold pole may wel......
- Huddart Parker Ltd v Coiter
-
Mellors against Shaw and Unwin
...servant enters into the service with a knowledge of the risk of injury which he incurs. The principle in that case, and in Wigmore v. Jay (5 Exch. 354), is that the servant accepts those risks of the service. [Crompton J. la Bartanshill Goal Company, Apps., Reid, Besp. (3 Macq. 266, 288), L......
-
Hannah Senior, Administratrix of John Senior, against Ward
...York, Newcastle and Berwick Railway Company (5 Exch. 343). The case falls within the rule established by those cases and Wigmare v. Jay (5 Exch. 354)), Skipp v. Eastern Counties Railway Company (9 Exch. 223), Seymour v. Maddox (16 Q. B. 326) and The Sartonshill Coal Company v. Reid (3 M'Q. ......