Table of Contents
Case brief of Smith v. Charles Baker and Sons – Barelaw.in
INTRODUCTION
The plaintiff was a contractor who was employed by the defendant’s railroad builders.
These stones were lifted from the cutting using a crane when they were in use.
Seeing that men were jibing above him, the plaintiff moved away from their way.
During the plaintiff’s hearing, one of his workmates had previously complained to the supervisor about throwing stones overhead and even informed the crane operator about this danger.
FACTS
While controlling a drill, he suffered grievous bodily harm when a stone under hoisting fell on him.
That rock wasn’t swung in that direction without notice.
The hammer distracted him so he could not take precautions but threw over his head and dropped it carelessly.
Throughout the trial at county court, the defendant’s lawyer maintained that according to plaintiff’s admission, as well as knowledge of risk involved made him committed to such an activity.
According to jury,
(1) there was no machine used for extraction of these stones from cutting as a whole that was reasonably adequate for this purpose,
(2) lack of warning during jibbing of stones constituted defect in procedure/process/job/machine/part; and
(3) employer or any person engaged by employer for handling such matters in relation to which defect was not rectified breached duty by exercising negligence thereof.
This appeal was heard by Court of Appeal mainly because guiltiness of defendant has not been established.
His Lordship appealed to House of Lords.
ISSUES BEFORE THE COURT
If plaintiff consented with risk?
Any evidence on neglect?
RATIO OF THE CASE
As stated before there was no warning or signal on this occasion but under instructions given by either employer or his agent employee had good reason due to some reasons like disability if any then depend on each case upon individual effort.
For these reasons I think this is an example where compensation should be awarded therefore I refer you my lords to what Court of Appeal decided.
According to the agreement, the employer is required to take reasonable steps, provide appropriate tools and equipment and ensure that the employee does not face undue risk.
Therefore, it is not a risk of work place accidents through negligence by employers or an escalation/increase in danger that should be included with other perils of employment which worker must regard as part of his job hazards.
Then, if the employer refuses to do what he has promised to do for his employee, I think it is wrong to say that if he doesn’t immediately resume work after such cessation it’s tantamount on him consenting thereby allowing his boss treat him like this.
I suppose that either he consented to or acquiesced in the act or default referred to as false but I am not aware of any legal principle which will support a finding that maxim volenti non fit injuria can apply.
FINAL JUDGMENT
CONCLUSION
In the reversal process by the House of Lords (Lord Bramwell differed in opinion) on the Court of Appeal’s decision, it was held that knowledge of the risk posed by failure to give notice deliberately to the plaintiff during continued employment did not disentitle him from compensation but rather evidence should show that due to omission he failed to give his notice.
The first time the protection of volenti non-fit injuria was eroded in relation to employees occurred through Smith v. Baker and Sons [1891] a House of Lords’ decision. Whether or not complainant’s consciousn
ess was so extreme as to amount to negligence on defendant’s part depends upon particular circumstances in each case.
It is simply not enough for an employee just because he knows very well that what he is about to do could endanger life and limb.
This is particularly if there was danger originating from another section which had little control over it and contributed or aggravated by employer’s own carelessness.
Whether this kind happens is factual but not legal matter.
These cases include both common law claims as well as those under the Employers Liability Act 1880.
