Hoey v Dublin and Belfast Junction Railway Company

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 18 June 1870
• Date: 18 June 1870
• Court: Common Pleas Division (Ireland)

Com. Pleas.

HOEY

and

DUBLIN AND BELFAST JUNCTION RAILWAY COMPANY.

Wilson v. Merry L. R. 1 Scotch. App. 332.

Gallagher v. PiperENR 16 C. B. N. S. 669, 692.

Youghal Railway CompanyUNK 12 Ir. C. L. R. 297.

M'Kinney v. The Irish North-Western Railway CompanyUNK 11 Ir. Jur. N. S. 228; in Ex. Ch. Ir. R. 2 C. L. 600.

Potts v. PlunketUNK 9 Ir. C. L. 290.

Couch v. SteelENR 3 E. & B. 402.

Tarant v. WebbENR 18 C. B. 797.

Dillon v. LeechUNK 26 L. J. Ex. 221.

Grffiths v. GedlowENR 3 H. & N. 648.

Assop v. YeatesENR 2 H. & N. 770.

Hutchinson v. Yorkshire Railway CompanyENR 5 Ex. 343.

Priestly v. FowlerENR 3 M. & W. 6.

Wiggett v. FoxENR 11 Ex. 832.

Morgan v. Vale of Neath Railway CompanyUNKELR 33 L. J. Q. B. 260; in Ex. Ch. L. R. 1 Q. B. 149.

M'Eniry v. Waterford Railway CompanyUNK 8 Ir. C. L. R. 312.

Tunney v. Midland Railway CompanyELR L. R. 1 C. P. 291.

Holmes v. ClarkeENRENR 6 H. & N. 349; 7 H. & N. 936.

Davis v. EnglandUNK 33 L. J. Q. B. 321.

Williams v. CloughENR 3 H. & N. 258.

Vose v. Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway CompanyENR 2 H. & N. 728.

Indermaur v. DamesELR L. R. 1 C. P. 286.

Dynen v. LeachUNK 26 L. J. Ex. 221.

Skipp v. Eastern Counties Railway CompanyENR 9 Ex. 223.

Clarke v. HolmesENR 7 H. & N. 937 (In Ex. Ch.).

Priestly v. FowlerENR 3 M. & W. 6.

Hutchinson v. York, Newcastle, and Berwick Railway CompanyENR 5 Exch. 343.

Gallagher v. PiperENR 16 C. B. N. S. 691.

Tarrant v. WebbENR 18 C. B. 778.

Holmes v. ClarkeENR 6 H. & N. 349.

Injury from Neligence of Fellow-Servant — Plaintiff's knowledge of Incompetence of Fellow-Servant.

206 THE IRISH REPORTS. [I. R. Com. Pleas. HOEY v. DUBLIN AvD BELFAST JUNCTION RAILÂ18.70. WAY COMPANY. June 10, 11, 18. Injury from Negligence of Fellow-Servant-Plaintif's knowledge of Incompe tence of Fellow-Servant. To an action by a servant against his employer for negligence in choosing a fellow-servant, owing to whose incompetence the Plaintiff suffered an injury, it is not a sufficient answer that the Plaintiff, previously to the injury, for a reaÂsonable time in that behalf, was aware of the fellow-servant's incompetence. Negligence on the part of the Plaintiff would disentitle him to recover ; but knowledge of the incompetence of the fellow-servant is only evidence of negliÂgence on the Plaintiff's part to be submitted to the jury. ACTION by an engine-driver against his employers, to recover damages for injuries sustained through the unskilfulness of a felÂlow-servant. The Summons and Plaint alleged that the Plaintiff was in the employment of the Defendants, as an engine-driver ; that while he was driving and managing a locomotive steam-engine, a certain other locomotive steam-engine of the Defendants' was then being driven and managed by one B. D., as and being an engine-driver then in their employment ; and that the Defendants so carelessly and negligently behaved themselves in the selection of B. D. to be such engine-driver that he was wholly unfit and incompetent to be such engine-driver ; and that by reason of said unfitness and incompetency of the said B. D. the engine last aforesaid was driven and forced violently against the engine which the Plaintiff was so managing and driving, whereby the Plaintiff was inÂjured. 4th PLEA. That, admitting for the purpose of this defence, but not further or otherwise, that the said B. D. was unfit and incomÂpetent, as in first count alleged, yet the Defendants say that, previously to the happening of the misfortune in said count menÂtioned, and for a reasonable time in that behalf, the Plaintiff knew and was well aware of the unfitness and incompetence of said B. D. Vox,. V.] COMMON LAW SERIES. 207 There were other counts averring negligence in choosing other Corn. Pleas. fellow-servants, &c., and similar pleas, all raising the same clues- 1870. tion. HOEY v. DEMURRER TO THE PLEA. DUB. & BEL FAST JUNCT. A. Houston, in support of the demurrer. The plea does not RAIL. Co. allege that the Plaintiff knew of D.'s incompetence when he...