Employers' Liability Act 1880

Last updated

Employers' Liability Act 1880
Act of Parliament
Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom (variant 1, 1952-2022).svg
Long title An Act to extend and regulate the Liability of Employers to make Compensation for Personal Injuries suffered by Workmen in their Service.
Citation 43 & 44 Vict. c. 42
Dates
Royal assent 7 September 1880
Other legislation
Repealed by Law Reform (Personal Injuries) Act 1948
Status: Repealed

The Employers' Liability Act 1880 (43 & 44 Vict. c. 42) was an act passed on 7 September 1880 by the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It enabled workers to seek compensation for injuries resulting from the negligence of a fellow employee.

Contents

Background

Prior to the passing of the Employers' Liability Act, it was impossible for a worker to hold his employer responsible for injuries caused by his foreman or another worker's negligence. This was because the standard line of thought on the matter at the time was expressed by the doctrine of Common Employment, which stated that “if the person occasioning and the person suffering the injury are fellow workmen, engaged in a common employment, the employer is not responsible.” [1] This doctrine of Common Employment was first established in the 1837 Priestly v. Fowler decision [2] Another legal principle at the time, supposedly dating back to the origin of English Common Law [3] that “a personal action dies with the person entitled to maintain it,” (Actio personalis moritur cum persona) meant that the family members of a deceased worker could not claim compensation. [4] Several workmen's associations wished to see the doctrine of Common Employment repealed, as they felt Priestley v Fowler ushered in an unfair and damaging interpretation of the law. [5] In response, Parliament formed a committee to consider evidence on the subject in 1877, and after numerous drafts and revisions, the Employers' Liability Act of 1880 was passed on 7 September. [6] It is probable that the bill was passed as much out of a desire to correct inconsistencies with the fact that employers were responsible for any injuries to strangers caused by those in their employ. [7]

The Act

The act states that any worker (or an immediate family member) is entitled to compensation for injury (or death) when the injury was caused by a defect in equipment or machinery, negligence of any person given authority over the worker by the employer, or an act or omission made by following the orders or bylaws of the employer or their representative. It also specifies that in the case of rail workers, an employer may be held responsible for the negligence of any person in "control of any signal, points, locomotive engine, or train upon a railway." [8] The act also placed limits on how much compensation an injured party (or their representative if deceased) could seek. The maximum was set at what someone in the same job in the same location could have expected to earn in the three years leading up to the injury. [9]

Effects

The Employers' Liability Act provided a way for workers to seek compensation when it was demonstrated that the injury was caused by a fellow employee. However, if the person at fault was not a fellow employee – for example, if they were someone working on the same project but contracted to a different employer – then that person's common law liability would remain, and they would be the responsible party. [10] Not all workers opted to rely on this legislation. Many chose instead to participate in benefit plans that were mutually financed by employer and employee, which would provide for compensation in the case of injury. As many as 25% of railway workers may have chosen to rely on these mutual insurance plans. [11]

The Employers' Liability Act was replaced by the Workmen's Compensation Act 1897, which removed the requirement that the injured party prove who was responsible for the injury – instead they only needed to show that the injury had occurred on the job.

See also

Related Research Articles

A tort is a civil wrong that causes a claimant to suffer loss or harm, resulting in legal liability for the person who commits the tortious act. Tort law can be contrasted with criminal law, which deals with criminal wrongs that are punishable by the state. While criminal law aims to punish individuals who commit crimes, tort law aims to compensate individuals who suffer harm as a result of the actions of others. Some wrongful acts, such as assault and battery, can result in both a civil lawsuit and a criminal prosecution in countries where the civil and criminal legal systems are separate. Tort law may also be contrasted with contract law, which provides civil remedies after breach of a duty that arises from a contract. Obligations in both tort and criminal law are more fundamental and are imposed regardless of whether the parties have a contract.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Workers' compensation</span> Form of insurance

Workers' compensation or workers' comp is a form of insurance providing wage replacement and medical benefits to employees injured in the course of employment in exchange for mandatory relinquishment of the employee's right to sue his or her employer for the tort of negligence. The trade-off between assured, limited coverage and lack of recourse outside the worker compensation system is known as "the compensation bargain.” One of the problems that the compensation bargain solved is the problem of employers becoming insolvent as a result of high damage awards. The system of collective liability was created to prevent that and thus to ensure security of compensation to the workers.

Respondeat superior is a doctrine that a party is responsible for acts of their agents. For example, in the United States, there are circumstances when an employer is liable for acts of employees performed within the course of their employment. This rule is also called the master-servant rule, recognized in both common law and civil law jurisdictions.

The system of Tort law in Australia is broadly similar to that in other common law countries. However, some divergences in approach have occurred as its independent legal system has developed.

Vicarious liability is a form of a strict, secondary liability that arises under the common law doctrine of agency, respondeat superior, the responsibility of the superior for the acts of their subordinate or, in a broader sense, the responsibility of any third party that had the "right, ability or duty to control" the activities of a violator. It can be distinguished from contributory liability, another form of secondary liability, which is rooted in the tort theory of enterprise liability because, unlike contributory infringement, knowledge is not an element of vicarious liability. The law has developed the view that some relationships by their nature require the person who engages others to accept responsibility for the wrongdoing of those others. The most important such relationship for practical purposes is that of employer and employee.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">English tort law</span> Branch of English law concerning civil wrongs

English tort law concerns the compensation for harm to people's rights to health and safety, a clean environment, property, their economic interests, or their reputations. A "tort" is a wrong in civil law, rather than criminal law, that usually requires a payment of money to make up for damage that is caused. Alongside contracts and unjust enrichment, tort law is usually seen as forming one of the three main pillars of the law of obligations.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Workplace Safety and Insurance Board</span> Government agency in Ontario

The Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) is the workplace compensation board for provincially regulated workplaces in Ontario. As an agency of the Ontario government, the WSIB operates "at arm's length" from the Ministry of Labour, Training and Skills Development and is solely funded by employer premiums, administration fees, and investment revenue. The WSIB is one of the largest compensation boards in North America and is primarily responsible for administering and enforcing the Ontario Workplace Safety and Insurance Act (WSIA).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Conspiracy, and Protection of Property Act 1875</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act 1875 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom relating to labour relations, which together with the Employers and Workmen Act 1875, fully decriminalised the work of trade unions. Based on an extension of the conclusions of the Cockburn Commission, it was introduced by a Conservative government under Benjamin Disraeli.

The Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA), 45 U.S.C. § 51 et seq. (1908), is a United States federal law that protects and compensates railroaders injured on the job.

The Workers Compensation Board of Manitoba (WCB) is an agency of the Government of Manitoba that provides a system for workplace injury and disability insurance for workers and employers of Manitoba, paid for by employers.

<i>Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd</i> 2002 English tort law case

Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2002] UKHL 22 is a leading case on causation in English tort law. It concerned malignant mesothelioma, a deadly disease caused by breathing asbestos fibres. The House of Lords approved the test of "materially increasing risk" of harm, as a deviation in some circumstances from the ordinary "balance of probabilities" test under the "but for" standard.

The following outline is provided as an overview of and introduction to tort law in common law jurisdictions:

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Workmen's Compensation Act 1906</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Workmen's Compensation Act 1906 was an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom which deals with the right of working people for compensation for personal injury. The Act expanded the scheme created by the Workmen's Compensation Act 1897.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Workmen's Compensation Act 1897</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Workmen's Compensation Act 1897 was a British law in operation from 1897 to 1946. Joseph Chamberlain, leader of the Liberal Unionist party and in coalition with the Conservatives, designed a plan that was enacted under the Salisbury government in 1897. The Act was a key domestic achievement. It served its social purpose at no cost to the government, since employers were required to cover medical costs of injuries on the job. It replaced the Employers' Liability Act 1880, which gave the injured worker the right to sue the employer but put the burden of proof on the employee. After 1897, injured employees had only to show that they had been injured on the job. The Act was modelled on German law, where roughly the same rights were awarded to workers in their 1884 law. However, the Workmen's Compensation Act 1897 did not require any form of risk pooling, such as insurance, on the part of the employers. As pointed out in the International Labour Organization 1935 "Report on Social Insurance", compulsory insurance was only introduced in 1934, and only for coal miners at first. The Act was replaced by an expanded scheme under the Workmen's Compensation Act 1906, whereby insurance became mandatory on the part of the employers, thus introducing the first social insurance scheme into the British case.

<i>Albro v. Agawam Canal Co.</i>

Albro v. The Agawam Canal Co., 6 Cush. 75, was a case in the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court that contributed to the "fellow servant rule".

<i>Devlin v. Smith</i>

Devlin v. Smith, 89 N.Y. 470 (1882) was a seminal case decided by the New York Court of Appeals in the area of product liability law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Law Reform Act 1945 is an Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom, which allows a judge to apportion liability for compensatory damages as he feels to be "just and equitable" between a tortfeasor and an injured person who was partly to blame. Section 1(1) of the Act provides:

"Where any person suffers damage as the result partly of his own fault and partly of the fault of any other person(s), a claim in respect of that damage will not be defeated by reason of the fault of the person suffering the damage, but the damages recoverable in respect thereof shall be reduced to such extent as the court thinks just and equitable having regard to the claimant's share in the responsibility for the damage."

The Workers' Compensation Board of British Columbia, operating as WorkSafeBC, is a statutory agency that came into existence in 1917, after the provincial legislature put into force legislation passed in 1902. This legislation is known as the Workers Compensation Act.

<i>Marine Services International Ltd v Ryan Estate</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Marine Services International Ltd v Ryan Estate, 2013 SCC 44 is a leading case of the Supreme Court of Canada concerning the coexistence of Canadian maritime law with provincial jurisdiction over property and civil rights, and it marks a further restriction upon the doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity in Canadian constitutional jurisprudence.

Workers' compensation in the United States is a primarily state-based system of workers' compensation.

References

  1. Ruegg, Alfred (1882). A Treatise Upon the Employers' Liability Act, 1880 (43 & 44 Vict. C. 42). London: Butterworths. p. 4.
  2. Ruegg, Alfred (1882). A Treatise Upon the Employers' Liability Act, 1880 (43 & 44 Vict. C. 42). London: Butterworths. p. 5.
  3. Henry Goudy (1913). Vinogradoff (ed.). Essays in Legal History. Oxford University Press.
  4. Ruegg, Alfred (1882). A Treatise Upon the Employers' Liability Act, 1880 (43 & 44 Vict. C. 42). London: Butterworths. p. 2.
  5. Ruegg, Alfred (1882). A Treatise Upon the Employers' Liability Act, 1880 (43 & 44 Vict. C. 42). London: Butterworths. p. 14.
  6. Ruegg, Alfred (1882). A Treatise Upon the Employers' Liability Act, 1880 (43 & 44 Vict. C. 42). London: Butterworths. pp. 14–15.
  7. Sym, John (1885). Analysis of the Employers' Liability Act of 1880 (43 & 44 Vict. C. 42) (Second ed.). Edinburgh: Bell & Bradfute.
  8. Ruegg, Alfred (1882). A Treatise Upon the Employers' Liability Act, 1880 (43 & 44 Vict. C. 42). London: Butterworths. p. 16.
  9. Ruegg, Alfred (1882). A Treatise Upon the Employers' Liability Act, 1880 (43 & 44 Vict. C. 42). London: Butterworths. p. 18.
  10. Ruegg, Alfred (1882). A Treatise Upon the Employers' Liability Act, 1880 (43 & 44 Vict. C. 42). London: Butterworths. p. 23.
  11. Giles, Audrey (2011). "Railway Accidents and Nineteenth Century Legislation: 'Misconduct, Want of Caution or Causes Beyond their Control?'". Labour History Review. 76 (2): 121–42. doi:10.1179/174581811X13063237706916 . Retrieved 15 March 2015.