Wilsons & Clyde Coal Co. Ltd v English Wilsons & Clyde Coal Co.

Ltd v English [1937] 3 All ER 628 Duties of employers at common law; liability of employer for acts of agent. Master - Servant Duty of Care Facts Mr English, a miner, was injured at work when he was crushed by haulage plant. He claimed damages from his employer, the mine owner. The employer argued that, at the time of the accident, responsibility for the safety of the mine had been delegated to his agent. In an action by a miner against his employers for damages for personal injury alleged to be due to the negligence of the employers in that they had failed to provide a reasonably safe system of working the colliery, questions were raised (1) whether the employers were liable at common law for a defective system of working negligently provided or permitted to be carried on by a servant to whom the duty of regulating the system of working had been delegated by the employers, the employers' board of directors being unaware of the defect, and (2) if they were liable, whether the employers were relieved of their liability in view of the prohibition contained in the Coal Mines Act 1911, s2(4), against the owner of a mine taking any part in the technical management of the mine unless he is qualified to be a manager. The Decision It was held by the House of Lords that (1) the employers were not absolved from their duty to take due care in the provision of a reasonably safe system of working by the appointment of a competent person to perform that duty. Although the employers might, and in some events were bound to, appoint someone as their agent in the discharge of their duty, the employers remained responsible. (2) the doctrine of common employment does not apply where it is proved that a defective system of working has been provided. To provide a proper system of working is a paramount duty, and, if it is delegated by a master to another, the master still remains liable. Lord Wright stated that the whole course of authority consistently recognises a duty which rests on the employer, and which is personal to the employer, to take reasonable care for the safety of his workmen, whether the employer be an individual, a firm, or a company, and whether or not the employer takes any share in the conduct of the operations. The obligation is threefold, "the provision of a competent staff of men, adequate material, and a proper system and effective supervision". The employer must: Provide a safe place of work with safe means of access and egress Provide and maintain safe appliances, equipment and plant for doing the work Provide and maintain a safe system for doing the work Provide competent co-employees to carry out the work

Note Where an agent is performing the employers duty of providing a safe system of work, he is performing the duty of the employer. The employer remains vicariously responsible for the agents negligence REFERENCE

http://www.safetyphoto.co.uk/subsite/case%20u%20v%20w/Wilsons_Clyde_Coal%20Co_Ltd_v _English.htm

Facts Mr English was employed at Wilsons & Clyde Coal Co Ltds colliery at Glencraig from 27 March 1933. He was repairing an airway leading off the Mine Jigger Brae, a main haulage road. Between 1:30pm and 2pm he was going to the pit bottom and the haulage plan was put in motion. He tried to escape through one of the manholes, but was caught by a rake of hutches and crushed between it and the side of the road. His family claimed damages. The company claimed that Mr Englishs own negligence contributed to his death, because he should have told the person in charge of the machinery, or taken an alternative route. Judgment House of Lords held unanimously that an employer has a non delegable duty to create a safe system of work. Even if an employer gives that duty to another person, they still remain responsible for workplace safety. Lord Atkin said he concurred with the other Lordships, and particularly with opinions given by the Lord President in this case, and by the Lord Justice-Clerk in Bain v Fife Coal Co on the English case of Fanton v Denville Lord Thankerton,[1] when a workman contracts to do work, he is not to be held as having agreed to hold the master immune from the latters liability for want of due care in the provision of a reasonably safe system of working. Lord Macmillan, Lord Wright and Lord Maugham delivered concurring judgments.