Scottish Court of Session Decisions

This was an advocation from Lanarkshire of an action for damages and solatium at the instance of the pursuer, a ship carpenter, against the defender as owner of the steamer Petrel, on account of injuries sustained by him while engaged in the execution of his duty as a carpenter in making repairs or alterations upon the paddle-wheels or paddle-floats of the said steamer while lying at the Broomielaw of Glasgow on 18th January 1864, and which injuries are alleged to have been caused through the culpable negligence or recklessness of those on board the vessel, acting under the defender, and for whom he is responsible, in having suddenly, and without any notice or warning to the pursuer, set in motion the engine or other machinery of the vessel, or caused the paddles to be moved, while the pursuer was in the paddle-box in the execution of his duty in making some repairs or alterations thereon, whereby the paddle-wheel of the steamer, whereon the pursuer was at the time employed, was set in motion, and the pursuer was carried round inside the paddle-box of the steamer, and crushed between the floats of the paddles, and had his right collar-bone and shoulder-blade broken, by which his system and constitution sustained a great shock, and his health has been severely impaired, and he has been permanently disabled and rendered unfit to earn a livelihood. The defence is that the pursuer did not suffer injuries to the extent alleged by him, and that, in so far as he did sustain injury, it was caused by his own negligence or recklessness by going into the paddle-box at an improper time, and without giving notice to the engineer that he was going which it is alleged, he ought to have done.

The Sheriff-Substitute (Smith) found, after a proof had been led, that in the month of January 1864 the pursuer was a ship carpenter in the employment of William Brocket; that on the morning of 18th January he was sent along with another ship's carpenter to do some work on board the Petrel steamer, of which vessel the defender is owner; that the pursuer went on board the Petrel soon after six o'clock on the morning of that day, and that he knew that she was intended to sail at ten o'clock; that part of the work which he had to do required him to go inside the paddle-box on the paddle-wheel, and that he did not begin that work till about nine o'clock; that it is the practice when parties go inside the paddle-box of steamers that they give or send notice of this to the engineer, to prevent accidents; that on said morning the pursuer went inside the paddle-box without giving or sending any notice to the engineer, who, about a quarter before ten o'clock, in ignorance that anyone was on the paddle-wheel, set the engine in motion; and the wheel at which the pursuer was working revolved and crushed the pursuer, who was severely injured; but that the injury to the pursuer was caused by his own carelessness and neglect, both in delaying his work within the paddle-box to so late an hour, and by going into the paddle-box without giving due notice to the engineer. In point of law he found that a party who suffers injuries caused chiefly by his own carelessness and neglect is not entitled to reparation; and he therefore sustained the defences and assoilzied the defender.

The Sheriff (Alison) altered this interlocutor, and found that in the circumstances of the case as proved, no fault was to be ascribed to the pursuer in obeying the orders of his employer to go into the paddle-box to make the necessary repairs, seeing he was never informed or made aware of any rule as to giving to the engineer notice of his going into the paddle-box to make repairs, and seeing that in the circumstances he was entitled to rely on receiving notice from the engineer of his intention to start the engine if the vessel moved before the advertised time of sailing, which was ten o'clock; that the engineer was clearly in fault and to blame—1st, for not making the pursuer aware of the alleged rule of any person going inside the paddle-box giving notice when he went in; 2d, for starting the engine and putting the paddle-wheels in motion, at least twenty minutes before the advertised time for the vessel sailing at ten o'clock; 3d, for not giving notice to the pursuer when he half seen him about the paddle-box, and he was himself at the other paddle-box, that he was to start the engine twenty minutes before the advertised time of the vessel's sailing, so as to warn the pursuer to get out of danger. He therefore found the defender liable in damages, which he assessed at £100.

The defender having advocated, the Court unanimously recalled the Sheriff's interlocutor, and reverted to that of the Sheriff-Substitute.