Wilsons & Clyde Co Ltd v English [1937] UKHL 2

A miner was injured due to a defective haulage system. His employer argued they had fulfilled their duty by appointing a competent manager. The House of Lords held that the employer's duty to provide a safe system of work is personal and non-delegable.

Facts

The respondent, Mr English, was a coal miner employed by the appellants, Wilsons & Clyde Coal Company, Ltd. He was injured at the end of his shift while making his way to the pit bottom along a main haulage road. The haulage system in that section was meant to be stopped to allow the men of his shift to pass. However, the system was started, and he was caught between a rake of hutches and the side of the road, sustaining serious injuries. The regular practice for managing the haulage system to ensure men’s safety had not been followed. The appellants contended that they had fulfilled their duty by appointing a duly qualified and competent colliery manager, to whom they had delegated the responsibility for creating and implementing a safe system of work, as required by the Coal Mines Act 1911.

Issues

The principal legal issue before the House of Lords was whether an employer’s common law duty to take reasonable care for the safety of their employees, specifically by providing a safe system of work, is a personal duty that cannot be delegated to a competent employee. Could the employer escape liability for an unsafe system by proving they had appointed a competent manager to oversee that system?

Judgment

The House of Lords unanimously dismissed the appeal, affirming the decision of the Scottish courts and holding the employer liable. The Law Lords established that the employer’s duty of care towards its employees is personal and non-delegable.

Lord Atkin

Lord Atkin clarified that the employer’s duty is not simply to be careful but to provide for the employee’s safety. He rejected the argument that the doctrine of common employment (where an employee could not sue the employer for the negligence of a fellow employee) applied to a failure in the system of work itself. The duty to provide a safe system is incumbent on the employer directly. He stated:

But the duty is the master’s duty, and he cannot escape it by delegating the performance of the duty to a servant, however competent.

He distinguished this from an isolated negligent act by a fellow servant, which would fall under common employment. The failure in this case was systemic, not a singular act of negligence in an otherwise safe system.

Lord Thankerton

Lord Thankerton agreed, emphasizing that the provision of a safe system of work is one of the fundamental duties an employer owes to its employees, alongside providing competent staff and adequate materials. He approved the principle that an employer’s liability for a breach of this duty is direct, not vicarious. The employer’s obligation is not discharged merely by giving instructions or delegating the task; they must ensure the duty is actually performed.

Lord Wright

Lord Wright provided a detailed analysis, distinguishing between the employer’s personal liability and vicarious liability. He stressed that the duty to provide a safe system is an intrinsic part of the employment contract, owed by the employer personally. He famously stated:

The obligation is personal to the employer, and he cannot escape it by delegating its performance to a servant. If the servant fails to perform it, it is the master who fails. The workman’s contract of employment is with the employer, not with the fellow servant.

He explained that the manager’s negligence was not merely the negligence of a fellow servant, but was the very method by which the employer had failed in its own personal duty. The statutory duties imposed on the colliery manager by the Coal Mines Act 1911 did not override or replace the employer’s fundamental common law obligations.

Implications

The decision in Wilsons & Clyde Coal Co Ltd v English is a landmark case in UK employment and tort/delict law. It definitively established the principle that an employer’s duty to provide a safe workplace is personal and cannot be delegated to an agent or employee. This case is the primary authority for the so-called ‘tripartite duty’ of an employer: to provide a competent staff, adequate material (plant and equipment), and a proper system of work with effective supervision. This principle underpins modern health and safety legislation and forms the basis of countless personal injury claims against employers. It separates the employer’s direct, primary liability for systemic failures from its secondary, vicarious liability for the isolated negligent acts of employees.

Verdict: Appeal dismissed. The judgment of the lower court in favour of the respondent (the employee) was affirmed.

Source: Wilsons & Clyde Co Ltd v English [1937] UKHL 2