64
|
P a g e
Groves v Lord Wimborne [1898]
The plaintiff was a boy employed in the service of the defendant. Amongst the
machinery in the works was a steam winch with revolving cog-wheels, at which the
plaintiff was employed. These cog-wheels were dangerous to a person working the
winch unless fenced. There was evidence that there had originally been a guard or fence
to these cog-wheels, but it had for some reason been removed, and there had been no
fence at the wheels while the plaintiff was employed at the winch, a period of about six
months. While the plaintiff was so employed, his right arm had been caught by the cog-
wheels, and was so much injured that the forearm had to be amputated.
It was held by the Court of Appeal that an action will lie in respect of personal injury
occasioned to a workman employed in a factory through a breach by his employer, the
occupier of the factory, of the duty to maintain fencing for dangerous machinery
imposed by him by s5(4) of the Factory and Workshop Act 1878. The defence of
common employment is not applicable in a case where injury has been caused to a
servant by the breach of an absolute duty imposed by statute upon his master for his
protection.
Monks v Warbey and others [1935]
The plaintiff claimed damages for personal injuries sustained by him as the result of a
collision between a motor coach driven by him and a motor car belonging to the
defendant Warbey. The motor car had been lent by Warbey to the defendant Knowles
on whose behalf it was being driven by the defendant May, negligently. Warbey, the
owner of the car, was insured against third party risks, but neither Knowles nor May
was insured against those risks. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant Warbey by
permitting the car to be used by Knowles and May, when no policy of insurance was in
force in relation to such user, committed a breach of the duty imposed by s35 of the
Road Traffic Act 1930.
It was held by the Court of Appeal that the owner of a motor car who, in contravention
of s35 (1) of the Road Traffic Act 1930, permits his car to be used by a person who is not
insured against third party risks, is liable in damages to a third party who has been
injured by the negligent driving of the uninsured person. In such a case the object and
purview of the Act show that the penalties prescribed by s35 (2) were not intended to
be the sole remedy for a breach of the owner's statutory duty. Where a person
uninsured against third party risks is permitted by the owner to use a car, and injury is
caused by his negligent driving to a third party, the latter may, where the uninsured
person is without means, sue the owner of the car directly for damages for breach of his
statutory duty and need not first sue the uninsured person.
Quinn v McGinty (1998)
Quinn sought damages from M, director of company LP. Quinn had been injured while
working for LP, but as LP had no assets and were uninsured, Quinn maintained that the
directors were personally liable as a consequence of their failure to arrange insurance
as required by the Employers' Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969. The sheriff
accepted McGinty's contention that no civil liability arose. Quinn appealed.
