BILL PRESENTED. FIRST READING. (Hansard, 17 February 1879)

§ EARL DE LA WARR

, in rising to call attention to the state of the law with regard to the liability of employers to make compensation for injuries to persons in their service, and to lay upon the Table of the House a Bill to amend the law on that subject, said, that before asking their Lordships to give a first reading to the Bill of which he had given Notice, he must beg the indulgence of the House if he very briefly referred to the state of the law in respect of the liability of employers to make compensation for injuries to persons in their service. The question was one which very materially affected a large portion of the industrial classes of this country, and he thought it could be shown that the difficulties which surrounded the operation of the law, as it now existed in this respect, had in a great measure arisen from the altered circumstances affecting industrial enterprize. The measure, therefore, which he proposed to introduce would not materially alter the existing law; but was intended to adapt that law to the changed conditions of things. He believed that the law, as now interpreted and acted upon, made a master or employer of labour personally liable for injuries which might occur to persons in his employ when it could be traced to any negligence or want of due precaution on his part. The Bill did not propose to alter that — it commended itself as fair and reasonable. But as matters now stood in regard to large undertakings—such as mines, collieries, factories, railways, workshops, or other industrial occupations — the employer rarely had anything or very little to do with the management of business himself, 1284 but generally delegated his authority to other persons. What the Bill proposed to do was this—that when any work was carried on, be it a mine, a factory, a workshop, a railway, a building trade, or any such like industrial undertaking, by a company or by persons who did not themselves superintend the management, but delegated their authority and superintendence to managers or others acting in their stead, the employers or company should be responsible for the acts of those persons whom they had, in fact, put into their places and invested with their authority. It was only comparatively of recent occurrence that large industrial undertakings had grown up which made it, in many instances, impossible for the owners and employers personally to superintend the management; and the consequence, owing to the extent of the work, was this—that a considerable number of persons were appointed, with various responsible duties assigned to them, in superintending the work which the employers were carrying on. The Bill proposed to make the employers liable for the negligence or want of precaution of those persons, the same as if it were the negligence and carelessness of the employers themselves. That seemed to be really only an adaptation of the principle of the liability of the employer for injuries to his servants when it arose from his own want of proper care or precaution; and it might have been supposed that such would have been the natural development of the law when circumstances which he had described became altered. But not so. The law had been interpreted differently—and he might add that there was by no means unanimity between Her Majesty's Judges on the subject—for the law, as at present administered, removed all liability from the employer or master, and gave the workman no redress beyond what he could obtain from the manager or person exercising superintendence. A new difficulty in the administration of the law had arisen in the doctrine of "common employment." This doctrine had been developed to such an extent that the manager or other person in authority in the case of a mine, a railway, a factory, or other industrial undertaking was now considered to be in what was called "common employment" with all workmen or servants engaged 1285 in the same work. The consequence was that the company or real employer escaped all liability, as the manager or person in authority was considered to be a fellow-workman with all those whom he was appointed to superintend. The Bill he now submitted proposed to afford some remedy, while it would not, as he had said, materially affect the principle of the existing law. It proposed to alter the law of "common employment" so far as to exclude managers or persons exercising superintendence from being in common employment with those placed under them. But it was not proposed to alter the law with regard to those engaged in actual labour, and the employer would not be liable for injuries caused by one workman to his fellow-workman in the ordinary course of his occupation. It was further provided in the Bill that no compensation should be given if the workman himself had contributed to the accident; and whatever might be the nature of the accident, if there had been exercised by those in charge for the time being necessary care and competency, neither the owner nor anyone else was intended to be made responsible for such accident. The main object of the Bill was to render an employer responsible, when it was shown in evidence that the accident might have been prevented by the exercise of care and ability on the part of those in charge to whom the master or employer had delegated his authority. Such were the chief features of the Bill, and he thought it might be affirmed that it did not alter the principle of the existing law; but proposed, rather, to adapt it to the change of circumstances affecting industrial employments. He could assure their Lordships that the greatest moderation had been shown by those who were interested in this question, and that they desired only what was fair and just.