|
Common Employment
Common employment was an historical defence in English tort law that said workers implicitly undertook the risks of being injured by their co-workers, with whom they were in "common employment". The US labor law terminology was the "fellow servant rule". Development The operation of the doctrine was seen first in '' Priestly v Fowler'' in the United Kingdom. In the United States the doctrine was seen in '' Farwell v. Boston & Worcester R.R. Corp''. Bunker Hill Mining Company operated by the fellow servant doctrine. According to Katherine Aiken, "persons engaged in the same common pursuit for the same employer were fellow servants and companies were not liable for injuries where a fellow servant was at fault. Thus, either the miner himself or his coworker was ultimately responsible for accidents." Between March 1893 and Feb. 1894, 15 fatalities occurred at the mine. It was abolished altogether by the Law Reform (Personal Injuries) Act 1948 in the United Kingdom. The doctr ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
English Tort Law
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, 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. In English law, torts like other civil cases are generally tried in front a judge without a jury. History Following Roman law, the English system has long been based on a closed system of nominate torts, such as trespass, battery and conversion. This is in contrast to continental legal systems, which have since adopted more open systems of tortious liability. There are various categories of tort, which lead back to the system of separate causes of action. The tort of negligence is however increasing in importance over other types of tort, prov ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
US Labor Law
United States labor law sets the rights and duties for employees, labor unions, and employers in the United States. Labor law's basic aim is to remedy the "inequality of bargaining power" between employees and employers, especially employers "organized in the corporate or other forms of ownership association". Over the 20th century, federal law created minimum social and economic rights, and encouraged state laws to go beyond the minimum to favor employees. The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 requires a federal minimum wage, currently $7.25 but higher in 29 states and D.C., and discourages working weeks over 40 hours through time-and-a-half overtime pay. There is no federal law, and few state laws, requiring paid holidays or paid family leave. The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 creates a limited right to 12 weeks of unpaid leave in larger employers. There is no automatic right to an occupational pension beyond federally guaranteed Social Security, but the Employee Retire ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Precedent
A precedent is a principle or rule established in a previous legal case that is either binding on or persuasive for a court or other tribunal when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts. Common-law legal systems place great value on deciding cases according to consistent principled rules, so that similar facts will yield similar and predictable outcomes, and observance of precedent is the mechanism by which that goal is attained. The principle by which judges are bound to precedents is known as ''stare decisis'' (a Latin phrase with the literal meaning of "to stand in the-things-that-have-been-decided"). Common-law precedent is a third kind of law, on equal footing with statutory law (that is, statutes and codes enacted by legislative bodies) and subordinate legislation (that is, regulations promulgated by executive branch agencies, in the form of delegated legislation) in UK parlance – or regulatory law (in US parlance). Case law, in common-law jurisdictions, ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Priestly V Fowler
''Priestley v Fowler'' 837150 ER 1030is an old English tort law case, which introduced the old rule of common employment (or "fellow servant rule" in the United States). This is idea that the employer is not liable for injuries caused by one employee to another in the course of their employment. The rule was removed in its entirety in the United Kingdom by the Law Reform (Personal Injuries) Act 1948. Despite this, there was no allegation by the plaintiff in this case "about the act of any fellow servant or indeed any suggestion that the duty sought to be put on the employer was other than a primary duty to ensure that the van was a safe conveyance." Facts On 30 May 1835 Charles Priestley, a servant of butcher Thomas Fowler of Market Deeping, was ordered to deliver mutton to market. The meat was placed in a wagon driven by William Beeton, another of Fowler's employees. Priestley was to accompany the cart only as far as Buckden, some twenty miles from Peterborough, where he was t ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Farwell V
Farwell may refer to: Places In the United States: * Farwell, Michigan * Farwell, Minnesota * Farwell, Nebraska * Farwell, Pennsylvania * Farwell, Texas Other uses * Farwell (surname) See also * Adams-Farwell {{disambiguation, geo ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Bunker Hill Mining Company
The Bunker Hill Mining Company is a mining company with facilities in Kellogg and Wardner, Idaho. Early history Simeon Reed bought the Bunker Hill Mine and Mill, and incorporated the Bunker Hill and Sullivan Mining and Concentrating Company on 29 July 1887. John Hays Hammond was hired to manage the mine, and a new concentrator, The Old South Mill, became operational in 1891, capable of 150 tons per day. Hammond became president on 2 July 1891, followed by Nathaniel H. Harris on 15 June 1893, when company headquarters were located in San Francisco. William Henry Crocker, of Crocker National Bank, served as treasurer, in addition to being the major stockholder. When the mining boom began in the Coeur d'Alene, Idaho mining district, the area was lightly inhabited. The Bunker Hill and the Sullivan companies built a boarding house for miners in 1887. By 1894, the company employed 332 workers, and in the late 1890s, the company built single-family houses to attract family men. I ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Law Reform (Personal Injuries) Act 1948
The Law Reform (Personal Injuries) Act 1948 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It was passed during the Labour government of Clement Attlee. It improved the legal position of employees suffering from work-related accidents. In particular, it abolished the doctrine of common employment Common employment was an historical defence in English tort law that said workers implicitly undertook the risks of being injured by their co-workers, with whom they were in "common employment". The US labor law terminology was the "fellow servant ... and repealed the Employers’ Liability Act, 1880.UK LegislationLaw Reform (Personal Injuries) Act 1948 accessed 3 February 2021 References {{UK legislation United Kingdom Acts of Parliament 1948 Personal injury Law reform in the United Kingdom ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Worker's Compensation
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. While plans differ among jurisdictions, provision can be made for weekly payments in place of wages (functioning in this case as a form of disability insurance), compensation for economic loss (past and future), reimbursement or payment of medical and like expenses (functioning in this case as a form ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Quasi-tort
Quasi-tort is a legal term that is sometimes used to describe unusual tort actions, on the basis of a legal doctrine that some legal duty exists which cannot be classified strictly as negligence in a personal duty resulting in a tort nor as a contractual duty resulting in a breach of contract, but rather some other kind of duty recognizable by the law. It has been used, for example, to describe a tort for strict liability arising out of product liability, although this is typically simply called a 'tort'. Although it is not to be found in most legal dictionaries, it has been used by some scholars such as Sri Lankan Lakshman Marasinghe. Lakshman proposes that the doctrine provides legal relief that falls outside tort or contract, but with some of the characteristics of tort or contract, as can be found in restitution (including unjust enrichment), equity (including unconscionable conduct), beneficiaries under a trust of the benefit of a promise, people protected by the valid assignme ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Contributory Negligence
In some common law jurisdictions, contributory negligence is a defense to a tort claim based on negligence. If it is available, the defense completely bars plaintiffs from any recovery if they contribute to their own injury through their own negligence. Because the contributory negligence doctrine can lead to harsh results, many common law jurisdictions have abolished it in favor of a "comparative fault" or "comparative negligence" approach. A comparative negligence approach reduces the plaintiff's damages award by the percentage of fault that the fact-finder assigns to the plaintiff for his or her own injury. For example, if a jury thinks that the plaintiff is 30% at fault for his own injury, the plaintiff's damages award will be reduced by 30%. History The doctrine of contributory negligence was dominant in U.S. jurisprudence in the 19th and 20th century. The English case Butterfield v. Forrester is generally recognized as the first appearance, although in this case the jud ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Volenti Non Fit Injuria
''Volenti non fit iniuria'' (or ''injuria'') (Latin: "to a willing person, injury is not done") is a common law doctrine which states that if someone willingly places themselves in a position where harm might result, knowing that some degree of harm might result, they are not able to bring a claim against the other party in tort or delict. ''Volenti'' applies only to the risk which a reasonable person would consider them as having assumed by their actions; thus a boxer consents to being hit, and to the injuries that might be expected from being hit, but does not consent to (for example) his opponent striking him with an iron bar, or punching him outside the usual terms of boxing. ''Volenti'' is also known as a "voluntary assumption of risk". ''Volenti'' is sometimes described as the plaintiff "consenting to run a risk". In this context, ''volenti'' can be distinguished from legal consent in that the latter can prevent some torts arising in the first place. For example, consent to ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Ex Turpi Causa Non Oritur Actio
' (Latin "from a dishonorable cause an action does not arise") is a legal doctrine which states that a plaintiff will be unable to pursue legal relief and damages if it arises in connection with their own tortious act. Particularly relevant in the law of contract, tort and trusts, ' is also known as the illegality defence, since a defendant may plead that even though, for instance, he broke a contract, conducted himself negligently or broke an equitable duty, nevertheless a claimant by reason of his own illegality cannot sue. The UK Supreme Court provided a thorough reconsideration of the doctrine in 2016 in ''Patel v Mirza''. 016UKSC 42 Illegality in English Law Development In the early case of ''Holman v Johnson'' Lord Mansfield CJ set out the rationale for the illegality doctrine. Tort In the law of tort, the principle would prevent a criminal from bringing a claim against (for example) a fellow criminal. In '' National Coal Board v England'', Lord Asquith said, In ' ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
