An employers' liability case of great importance—" John- son (pauper)
v. W. H. Lindsay and Co."—was decided in the House of Lords on Tuesday. It is a well-established principle of law that a workman cannot claim compensation_ from an employer if the injury was occasioned by the negli- gence of persons engaged with him in a common employment.. The final Court of Appeal has, however, now clearly laid it down that there must be not only common employment, but a common employer. In the case before the Court, two con- tractors were engaged on different operations in one building. A workman of one was injured by the negligence of the servants of the other. Under these circumstances, the injurea man was held to be entitled to compensation from the firm employing the men whose negligence caused the mischief. This decision is obviously reasonable, for there was no implied; contract on the part of the labourer injured to run risks created by a band of strange workmen. But it is only on an implied contract to waive the risks created by men in the service of his own employer that an exception is made to the rule, Qui facit per alium tacit per se. But for this impliecl contract, a master would be responsible for damage done
by his servants to each other while at work. It is interesting -to note that in this case, and in one decided last week, the labourers who won sued in formaf pauperis,—that is, put the highest Court of the realm in motion without any cost to themselves.
Previous page
