Rodger v. Fife Coal Co., Ltd [1922] ScotLR 102 (18 November 1922)

Rodger v. Fife Coal Co., Ltd [1922] ScotLR 102 (18 November 1922)

Section 49 of the Coal Mines Act 1911 imposes a statutory duty on mine-owners to ensure the safety of mine roofs and sides, and this duty is not negated by section 2(4), which merely restricts technical management to qualified persons. The pursuers' averments of breach of this duty were relevant, and a case of statutory liability was competently stated against the defenders.

Citation
[1922] ScotLR 102
Parties
Pursuers: David Alexander Rodger and Mrs Jane Innes or Rodger; Defenders: Fife Coal Company, Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
18 November 1922
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Sheriff Court to Court of Session Inner House, First Division
Outcome
appeal refused
Legal Topics
Employer's Liability, Breach of Statutory Duty, Mine Safety, Master and Servant, Negligence
Tort Employment Law Statutory Interpretation Employer's Liability Breach of Statutory Duty Mine Safety Master and Servant Negligence

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Alexander Rodger and Mrs Jane Innes or Rodger

Pursuers

Fife Coal Company, Limited

Defenders

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Sheriff Court to Court of Session Inner House, First Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the mine-owner is under a statutory duty to make secure the roof and sides of every travelling road and working-place under section 49 of the Coal Mines Act 1911, notwithstanding section 2(4) of the same Act.
  2. 2 Whether a relevant case of statutory liability was averred against the defenders for the death of the pursuers' son.

Ratio Decidendi

Section 49 of the Coal Mines Act 1911 imposes a statutory duty on mine-owners to ensure the safety of mine roofs and sides, and this duty is not negated by section 2(4), which merely restricts technical management to qualified persons. The pursuers' averments of breach of this duty were relevant, and a case of statutory liability was competently stated against the defenders.

Court Disposition

appeal refused

Orders

  • The appeal by the defenders is refused.