This short judgment, given in the belief that there were no precedents, touches on a number of the issues which were to be, and still are, to some extent, central to compensation cases. It is therefore worth identifying them. 1 The contractual relationship The declaration which was the basis of the appeal (under a procedure which has been long since obsolete) described the plaintiff as ‘servant’ of the defendant; that is, an ‘employee’. Lord Abinger questioned whether the contract of employment gave rise to any duty on the employer to ‘cause the servant to be safely carried’. 2 General duty Lord Abinger suggested that independently of the contract there might be a general duty on the employer, but did not develop this proposition. A general duty might be implied in all contracts of a certain type, such as employment contracts. It might, alternatively, be a duty arising independently of the existence of a contract; in modern law such duties arise in the tort of negligence. 3 Vicarious liability Lord Abinger was alarmed lest the employer be liable for the wrongdoings of a wide variety of persons. The modern rule is that an employer is liable for the wrongdoings employees commit when in the course of their employment. Some of the people in examples given by Lord Abinger were not employees; indeed he suggested that the defendant’s liability might arise from the relationship of principal and agent rather than that of employer and employee. 4 Plant and equipment There are suggestions that the employer’s van might not have been sound. Alternatively it might not have been appropriate for the load that had to be carried, or the goods might not have been properly loaded onto the vehicle. The nature and extent of the employer’s liability for plant and equipment, and the instruction and supervision of employees in the use of it remain important issues. 5 Personal responsibility of the employer The judge stated that the employer ‘is, no doubt, bound to provide for the safety of his servant in the course of his employment, to the best of the judgment, information, and belief’. This suggests that there may be an obligation on the employer quite apart from vicarious liability.

DOI link for This short judgment, given in the belief that there were no precedents, touches on a number of the issues which were to be, and still are, to some extent, central to compensation cases. It is therefore worth identifying them. 1 The contractual relationship The declaration which was the basis of the appeal (under a procedure which has been long since obsolete) described the plaintiff as ‘servant’ of the defendant; that is, an ‘employee’. Lord Abinger questioned whether the contract of employment gave rise to any duty on the employer to ‘cause the servant to be safely carried’. 2 General duty Lord Abinger suggested that independently of the contract there might be a general duty on the employer, but did not develop this proposition. A general duty might be implied in all contracts of a certain type, such as employment contracts. It might, alternatively, be a duty arising independently of the existence of a contract; in modern law such duties arise in the tort of negligence. 3 Vicarious liability Lord Abinger was alarmed lest the employer be liable for the wrongdoings of a wide variety of persons. The modern rule is that an employer is liable for the wrongdoings employees commit when in the course of their employment. Some of the people in examples given by Lord Abinger were not employees; indeed he suggested that the defendant’s liability might arise from the relationship of principal and agent rather than that of employer and employee. 4 Plant and equipment There are suggestions that the employer’s van might not have been sound. Alternatively it might not have been appropriate for the load that had to be carried, or the goods might not have been properly loaded onto the vehicle. The nature and extent of the employer’s liability for plant and equipment, and the instruction and supervision of employees in the use of it remain important issues. 5 Personal responsibility of the employer The judge stated that the employer ‘is, no doubt, bound to provide for the safety of his servant in the course of his employment, to the best of the judgment, information, and belief’. This suggests that there may be an obligation on the employer quite apart from vicarious liability.

This short judgment, given in the belief that there were no precedents, touches on a number of the issues which were to be, and still are, to some extent, central to compensation cases. It is therefore worth identifying them. 1 The contractual relationship The declaration which was the basis of the appeal (under a procedure which has been long since obsolete) described the plaintiff as ‘servant’ of the defendant; that is, an ‘employee’. Lord Abinger questioned whether the contract of employment gave rise to any duty on the employer to ‘cause the servant to be safely carried’. 2 General duty Lord Abinger suggested that independently of the contract there might be a general duty on the employer, but did not develop this proposition. A general duty might be implied in all contracts of a certain type, such as employment contracts. It might, alternatively, be a duty arising independently of the existence of a contract; in modern law such duties arise in the tort of negligence. 3 Vicarious liability Lord Abinger was alarmed lest the employer be liable for the wrongdoings of a wide variety of persons. The modern rule is that an employer is liable for the wrongdoings employees commit when in the course of their employment. Some of the people in examples given by Lord Abinger were not employees; indeed he suggested that the defendant’s liability might arise from the relationship of principal and agent rather than that of employer and employee. 4 Plant and equipment There are suggestions that the employer’s van might not have been sound. Alternatively it might not have been appropriate for the load that had to be carried, or the goods might not have been properly loaded onto the vehicle. The nature and extent of the employer’s liability for plant and equipment, and the instruction and supervision of employees in the use of it remain important issues. 5 Personal responsibility of the employer The judge stated that the employer ‘is, no doubt, bound to provide for the safety of his servant in the course of his employment, to the best of the judgment, information, and belief’. This suggests that there may be an obligation on the employer quite apart from vicarious liability.