Smily v The Glasgow and Londonderry Steampacket Company

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 25 November 1867
• Date: 25 November 1867
• Court: Exchequer (Ireland)

Exchequer.

SMILY

and

THE GLASGOW AND LONDONDERRY STEAMPACKET COMPANY.

Priestley v. FowlerENR 3 M. & W. 1.

Dynen v. Leach 26 L. R. Ex. 221.

Vaughan v. Cork and Youghal Railway CompanyUNK 12 Ir. C. L. R. 297.

Holmes v. ClarkeENRENR 6 H. & N. 349; 30 L. J. Exch. 135; S. C. in Ex. Ch. 7 H. & N. 937; 31 L. J. Exch. 356.

Potts v. PlunkettUNK 9 Ir. C. L. R. 290.

Mƒ€™Kinney v. Irish North Western Railway Company 11 Ir. Jur. N. S. 228.

Sullivan v. WatersUNK 14 Ir. C. L. R. 460.

Lovegrove v. London, Brighton, & South Coast Railway CompanyENRUNK 16 C. B. N. S. 669; 33 L. J. C. P. 329.

Gallaher v. PiperENRUNK 16 C. B. N. S. 670; 33 L. J. C. P. 331.

Cotton v. WoodUNK S C. B. N. S. 568; 29 L. J. C. P. 333.

Murphy v. PollockUNK 15 Ir. C. L. R. 224.

Bartonshill Coal Company v. ReidUNK 3 Macq. 266.

Patterson v. WallaceUNK 1 Macq. 748.

Dixon v. BellENR 5 M. & S. 198.

Dynen v. Leach 26 L. J. Exch. 221.

Chapman v. SpeetUNK 8 Ir. L. R. 298.

Griffiths v. Gidlow 3 . & N. 648.

Fetham v. EnglandELRENR L. R. 2 Q. B. 33; 4 F. & F. 460.

Dynen v. Leach 26 L. J. Exch. 221.

Tarrant v. WebbENR 18 C. B. 797.

Ashworth v. StanwixUNKENR 30 L. J. Q. B. 183; 3 E. & E. 701.

Mellor v. ShawENRUNK 1 B. & S. 437; 30 L. J. Q. B. 333.

Holmes v. ClarkeENRENR 6 H. & N. 349; 7 H. & N. 937.

Vose v. The Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway CompanyENR 2 H. & N. 728; 27 L. J. Exch. 249.

Williams v. CloughENR 3 H. & N. 258, 325.

Roberts v. SmythENRENR 2 H. & N. 213; 11 C. B. N. S. 429.

Senior v. WardENR 1 E. & E. 385.

Searle v. LindsayUNKENR 31 L. J. C. P. 106; 11 C. B. N. S. 429.

Brown v. Accrington Cotton CompanyENR 3 H. & C. 511; 14 L. J. Exch. 208.

Negligence — Master and Servant — Liability of Master for Injury sustained by Servant in the Course of his Employment.

24 THE IRISH REPORTS. Exchequer. SMYLY v. THE GLASGOW AND LONDONDERRY 1867. STEAM-PACKET COMPANY. Nov. 18, 19, 25. Negligence-Master and Servant-Liability of Master for Injury sustained by Servant in the Course of his Employment. The first paragraph of the Writ of Sammons and Plaint stated in substance that the Defendants employed the Plaintiff as a coal trimmer on board their steamship, and that they, well knowing that the large centre wheel of the engine of the steamship required oiling, and that they had not employed a skilful person to oil it, and that it was not the duty of the Plaintiff to oil it, and that he was an unskilful and improper person to be employed in that beÂhalf, wrongfully, &c., sent him to oil it ; and that he, while obeying the DeÂfendants' command in oiling the wheel, was injured by it. The second paragraph stated in substance that the Defendants employed the Plaintiff as a coal trimmer upon their steamer ; and that they so negligently managed the steamer, that they suffered her to depart on a voyage without oilÂing the machinery of the vessel, which they were bound to do, and without having on board an experienced and skilled machinist for the oiling of the machinery, as they were bound to have ; and that while on the voyage the Defendants required. the Plaintiff to oil the machinery, well knowing that he was unskilled and unfit for such duty ; and that the Plaintiff, while obeying the order of the Defendants in oili the machinery, which was essential to the safety of the vessel, was injured by the machinery. Held, that both counts were bad on demurrer, as they did not aver that the Defendants knew the work to be dangerous, or that the work was in fact danÂgerous, and as it was consistent with the averments contained in them that the injury might have occurred through the carelessness of the Plaintiff himself. DEMURRER. The first count of the writ of Simmons and Plaint stated that the Defendants were the owners of a certain steam ship, running between Sligo and Liverpool and back, and had engaged and employed the Plaintiff as a coal trimmer on board the said steamer, at a certain weekly salary, and the said Defendants, well knowing that the large centre wheel of the engine of the said steamer required to be oiled for the said voyage, and well knowing that they had not employed or engaged a skilful and experienced person to perform the duties of oiling the COMMON LAW SERIES. 25 said centre wheel of the said engine, and that it was not the duty Exchequer. of the said Plaintiff to oil the said maehinbry, wrongfully and 1867. injuriously sent the Plaintiff to oil the said large centre wheel of SDYLY the said engine, well knowing that the said Plaintiff was unskilled v. and an unfit and improper person to be sent to oil the said GLANSGD:; & _ large centre wheel of the said engine, and to be intrusted. with the DERRY STEAM work of oiling the wheel of the said engine ; and the Plaintiff, PACKET Co. while obeying the order of the said Defendants in oiling the said large centre wheel of the said engine, was injured by the said wheel, and had his right arm so injured and mutilated by the said machinery, that the same had to be amputated, and thereby he was prevented from performing his lawful business, and put to great expense in procuring his cure. The second paragraph stated that the Defendants were the owners of a certain steamship, running between Sligo and Liverpool and back, and had engaged and employed the Plaintiff on board. the said steamship in the capacity of coal trimmer, at a certain weekly salary ; and the said Defendants so careÂlessly and negligently managed and conducted the said vessel, that they permitted and allowed the said vessel to leave and depart from the port of Sligo, on a voyage to Liverpool, without oiling the...