Scottish Court of Session Decisions

Margaret Black raised an action in the Sheriff Court of Lanarkshire at Glasgow, at common law and under the Employers Liability Act 1880, against Barclay, Curie, & Co., shipbuilders, concluding for payment of alternative sums of money as compensation for the death of her husband.

The pursuer averred that on 6th September 1895 the deceased was in the defenders' employment as a rivet-tester, and that on that date he was, on the instructions of John Ferguson, a superintendent, manager, or foreman, to whose orders he was bound to conform, engaged in testing the rivet-work in the side of a steamer in course of being built by the defenders.

The pursuer continued—“(Cond. 5) In order to test the said rivet-work, the said deceased James Black required to stand on a scaffold erected for that purpose by the defenders, or those for whom they are responsible. The said scaffold consisted of two planks about 16 feet in length and 9 inches in breadth, resting on two small joists, which were fastened to upright beams of wood, about 30 feet high, against which the hull of the said steamer rested. The ends of the said joists terminated within the hold of the said steamer, and across them the planks, forming the scaffold upon which the said deceased James Black had to stand, were laid. The said scaffold was about 10 feet from the bottom of the hold of said steamer. (Cond. 6) On said date the said deceased James Black, while in the exercise of his duty as aforesaid, was engaged in testing the rivet-work on said vessel, and while standing on said scaffold or platform, a rope or tackle used in hoisting a large iron beam, which was being hoisted by means of a block and tackle, suddenly came into violent contact with the end of the said planks forming the scaffold or platform, with the result that they jerked off the said joists, and the said deceased James Black was thrown to the bottom of the hold of said steamer, a distance of about 10 feet.”

After averring that the deceased, in consequence of said accident, received severe injuries, from which he died, the pursuer proceeded—“(Cond. 8) The said accident was due to the fault and culpable negligence of the defenders, and of their said foreman, for whom they are responsible, in failing to have a safe and sufficient platform provided, and especially in failing to have the said platform properly secured by nuts and bolts. Further, the defenders and their said foreman were at fault in allowing the said beam to be raised by the said block and rope tackle at a place where it could come in contact with the said platform, and, in any event, they should have used proper means to prevent the said beam swinging about, to the extreme peril of the deceased, but no such precautions were taken by the defenders or their said foreman, with the result foresaid, or, otherwise, the defenders' said foreman was in fault in ordering the pursuer's husband to work on the platform in question when the said operations were going on, which might involve risk to his life. If the pursuer was to carry on said work at that time, it was, in any event, the duty of the defenders, or the said John Ferguson, in the exercise of the superintendence entrusted to him, to warn the deceased that the said beam was about to be raised, so that he might provide for his own safety by leaving the platform until the work of hoisting had been completed; but the said John Ferguson gave no such warning or notice to the said deceased James Black, with the result foresaid. The defenders, in directing the deceased to work on the said platform, exposed him to unnecessary risk, and they are accordingly liable for the consequences that ensued.”

The pursuer pleaded, inter alia—“(2) The said deceased James Black, while a workman in the employment of the defenders, having been killed through the fault of a servant of the common employers, while in the exercise of a duty of superintendence entrusted to him, the pursuer is entitled to reparation as craved, with expenses. (3) The pursuer's said deceased husband while a workman in the employment of the defenders, having lost his life, as condescended on, through the defective condition of the defenders' works, machinery, and plant, the pursuer is entitled to reparation as craved, with expenses.”