DR.

RAM MANOHARLOHI YANATI

ONALLAW
UNI
VERSI
TY,LUCKNOW
2011-
12

FI
NALPROJECT

STUDYOFBASI
CSOFCASELAW

SMI
THV.CHARLESBAKER&SONS

Submi
tt
edt
o:- Submi
tt
ed
by:
-
Mr.
SHASHANKSHEKHAR GAURAV
KRI
SHNA
Asst
.Pr
ofessor(
casel
aw) Rol
lno.
61
 Semest
er-
I

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Iwoul
dli
ke t
o ex
press my speci
alt
hanks of
gr
ati
tude t
o my t
eacher
Mr.
SHASHANK
SHEKHARwhogav
emet
hegol
denoppor
tuni
tyt
odo
t
hiswonder
fulpr
ojectont
het
opi
c-CASEBRI
EFEON
CASE-SMI
TH V.CHARLESBAKER&SONS,whi
ch
al
sohel
pedmei
ndoi
ngal
otofResear
chandi
came
t
o know aboutso many new t
hings,
Iam r
eal
l
y
t
hankf
ult
ohi
m.
Secondl
yiwoul
dal
sol
i
ket
othankmyseni
orsand
f
ri
endswhohel
pedmeal
oti
nfi
nishi
ngt
hispr
oject
wi
thi
nthel
i
mit
edt
ime.
CONTENTS

Intr
oduction
casebriefing
Statementoff act
s
Proceduralhistor
y
Issues
Judgment
Represent at
ion
Orderoft hecourt
Conclusion
I
NTRODUCTI
ON

I
tschi
efpur
posei
stogi
vegui
dancet
other
eaderonhow
t
oreadacasei
nor
dert
oident
if
y,ext
ract
,andwher
e
necessar
yappl
yit
srat
iodeci
dendi
.Al
lthoset
rai
ningf
or
t
heBarhav
eint
heor
yreadmanycasesatt
heacademi
c
st
age,anddohav
elear
nedt
odot
his.Buty
oumaynot
ev
erhav
e gi
ven much compr
ehensi
vet
houghtt
othe
pr
ocessofr
eadi
ngacaseort
oident
if
yingexact
lywhat
t
her
ati
oofi
tis.Al
soanecdot
alev
idencesuggest
sthat
t
her
ear
esomewhohav
egotbyt
oav
eryl
argeex
tent
usi
ngcasebooks,whi
chcont
ainonl
ydi
gest
sofcases,or
si
mpl
ybyr
eadi
ngt
heheadnot
eofacase,whi
chcont
ains
ashor
tst
atementofwhatt
her
epor
terconsi
der
stobei
ts
r
ati
o,butwhi
chmayormaynotbeaccur
ate,par
ti
cul
arl
y
af
tert
hecasehasbeeni
nter
pret
edbyacour
tinal
ater
case.
SMI .CHARLESBAKER&SONS1
THv
CASENO.
:-

BAILI
I
Ci
tati
onNumber
:[1891]UKHL2
APPELLANT:
-

JOSEPHSMI
TH(
PAUPER)

RESPONDRNT:
-

CHARLESBAKER&SONS

DATEOFJUDGMENT:
-

21JULY1981

BENCH:
-
Lor
dHal
sbur
yL.
C
Lor
dBr
amwel
l
Lor
dWat
son
Lor
dHer
schel
l
Lor
dMor
ri
s

FACT:
-

Thepl aint
if
fwasempl oy edbyr ail
waycont ractorst
odr i
ll
holesinar ockcut ti
ngnearacr anewor kedbymeni nt
he
empl oyofthecont r
actor s.Thecr anelif
tedst onesandat
ti
messwungov erthepl aint
iff
'sheadwi thoutwar ni
ng.The
plai
ntiffwasf ul
lyawar eoft hedangert owhi chhewas
exposedbyt huswor kingneart hecranewi thoutany
war ni
ngbei nggi v
en,andhadbeent husempl oyedfor
mont hs.Ast onehav ingf all
enf rom thecraneandi njur
ed
theplainti
ff,hesuedhi sempl oyersintheCount yCourt
undert heEmpl oyersLi abili
tyAct1880.

I
SSUE:
-

1.
Def
enceof"Volent
inonf
iti
njur
ia"wasl
i
mit
edi
n
empl
oyeesi
tuat
ions.
2.Whethertheknowledgeoft
heplai
nti
ffinthepart
icul
ar
ci
rcumstancesmadei tso unreasonableforhi
mt odo
whathedidast oconsti
tut
econt
ri
butorynegli
gence.
JUDGMENT:
-
Itwasheldbyt heHouseofLor ds, reversingt hedeci sion
oftheCourtofAppeal (LordBr amwel l dissent i
ng),thatt he
merefactthatthepl aint i
ffundertookandcont inuedi nthe
employmentwi thf ullknowl edgeandunder st andingoft he
dangerari
singfr om t hesy stemat i
cnegl ectt ogi vewar ning
didnotprecludehi mf rom r ecovering;thatt heev i
dence
wouldjusti
fyaf indingt hatthepl ai
nt i
ffdidnotv ol
unt ari
l
y
undert
aket heriskofi njury;thatthemaxi m" Volenti nonf i
t
i
njuri
a"didnotappl y ;andt hattheact ionwasmai ntainable.

Accor
dingt
oLORDHALSBURYLC:
-
Thati nor dert odefeatapl aintif
f'srightbyt heappl i
cation
ofthemaxi mr eli
edon, whowoul dot herwi sebeent it
ledto
recov er,thej ur
youghtt obeabl et oaf f i
rmt hathe
consent edt othepar t
icularthingbei ngdonewhi chwoul d
i
nv olvet her i
sk,andconsent edt ot aket her iskupon
himsel f.Itismanifestthati fthepr oposi ti
onwhi chIhav e
j
ustenunci at edbeappl iedt othiscase, themaxi m coul d
herehav enoappl icati
on.Sof arfrom consent ing,the
plainti
f fdidnotev enknowoft hepar ticularoper ati
on
thatwasbei ngper formedov erhi sheadunt i
l theinjury
happenedt ohim, andconsent ,theref ore,wasoutof the
quest ion.AsIhav ei nt
imat edbef ore, Idonotdenyt hata
particularconsentmaybei nferredf rom agener al
cour seofconduct .Everysai l
orwhomount st her i
ggingof
ashi pknowsandappr eciatest her iskhei sencount ering.
Theacti shi sown, andhecannotbesai dnott oconsent
tothet hingwhi chhehi msel fisdoi ng.Andexampl esmight
beindef initelymul ti
pl i
edwher et heessent ial causeoft he
ri
ski st heactoft hecompl ainingpl aintiffhi msel f
, and
wher e, ther ef ore,theappl i
cat i
onoft hemaxi m, “Vol enti
nonf itinj uria,”iscompl etelyjust ified.t reat edt hequest i
on
apartf rom t hespeci f i
cf indingsbyt hej ury .ButIam not
disposedt ot hinkt hatt hosef indi ngswer enotj ust ifi
ed
upont heev idencepr esent ed.Theyf oundt hatt he
machi ner yforl ift
ingt hest onef rom t hecut ti
ngwasnot
reasonabl yf itf orthepur posef orwhi chi twasappl i
ed,
takenasahol e.Ithinkt hej urymeant —andi ft heydi dso
mean, Iam ofopi niont hatt heywer er ight —that ,l
ooki ngto
theriski ncur redbyt hemenwor ki ngbel owandt ot he
possibi li
tyoft hecr anewhenwor kedl ettingst onesf al
l,t
he
machi ner ywasnotr easonabl yf itf ort hepur posef or
whichi twasappl ied, thati st osay ,notr easonabl yf i
tfor
secur i
ngt hatst onesshoul dnotf allfrom i twhen
slungov ermen' sheads.Andf urt her ,thati fwi thsuch
machi ner yt hest oneswer ebei ngsl ungov ermen' s
heads, speci al war ningoughtt ohav ebeensuppl iedt othe
meni mper i
lledbysuchanoper at ion, andt hat
theempl oy er swer egui ltyofnegl igencei nnot
remedy ingsuchamodeofwor kingsuchmachi ner y
under suchcondi tionsofwor k.negl i
gentmodeofusi ng
perfect l
ysoundmachi ner ymaymaket heempl oy erli
able
quiteapar tfrom anyof thepr ov isionsoft heEmpl oy ers'
Liabil
ityAct .I nSwor dv .Camer oni tcoul dhar dlybe
doubt edt hatt hequar r
y manwhowasi njur edbyt he
explosionoftheblasti
nthequar
rywasperfect
lyawar
eof
therisk;butnever
thel
esshewasheldent
it
ledtorecov
er
notwithstandi
ngthatknowl
edge.
Itseemst omet hati nt hepr esentcaset her i
ghtoft he
plai
nt i
fftor ecov eri sf armor ecl earthani nSwor dv.C
amer on.The i nter valgi ven tot he quar r
yman to seek
shelterwast heusualandor dinaryone.Butsupposei n
thatcaset heempl oyerhadempl oyedthequar r
ymant odo
somet hing whi ch by t he v eryf ormoft he employment
preventedhi shear ingt hesi gnalwhi chgav ehim warning
toretreat?Inthiscase, asI
havepoi ntedout ,therewasnowar ningandnosi gnal,but
theempl oyerorhi sr epr esentativeempl oyedt
heplaintif
f
undersuchci rcumst ancesasdi sabledhimf rom usi
nghi s
eyesf orprotectinghi msel fagai nstt
herisk.
Itseemst ome,t her efor e,thatt hi
sisacasei nwhicht he
plai
nt i
ffisent i
tl
edt or ecov er,andIt herefor
emov eyour
Lordshipst hatt hej udgmentoft heCour tofAppealbe
reversed,and t he j udgmentoft hecounty courtjudge
restored.

Accor
dingt
oLORDWATSON

I
nt hepresentcasenoobj ect
ionwasmadeatt het r
ialon
thepartoft herespondentsthatt her
ewasnoev idence
uponwhi cht hej
urycouldf i
ndt herewasnegligenceon
thei
rpar
t;
nay,more,i
nt henoti
ceofmot ion,bywayofappeal,inthe
Queen' sBenchDi v i
sion, noobj ect ionwas
taken t hatt here was no ev idence ofnegl i
gence.The
quest ionofl awr aisedatt het rial,bot hatt hecl oseoft he
plaintiff'
scasei naski ngf oranon- suit,
andatt hecl oseof
the ent ir
e case i n aski ng f orj udgment ,was,t hatt he
plaintiffhav ing admi tt
ed t hathe knew t he r isk and
volunt aril
yi ncur r
ed i t,t he def endant s wer e ent it
led to
succeed.Noquest ionofl awwasr aisedast other ebei ng
noev idencet ogot ot hej uryt oest ablisht hedef endant s'
negl i
gence.
TheCour tofAppealdeci dedt hecaseuponaquest i
onof
l
awnott akenatt het ri
al.Icanf i
ndnor ef erencei nanyof
the j udgment si nt he C our tofAppealas t ot heir
compet encyt o entertain and deci de upon a poi ntnot
made att he t ri
al,nordoes t he case ofC l ar
kson v .
Musgr av eappeart o hav ebeen ci ted.I ti san expr ess
decision,andonei nwhi chIent irelyconcur ,t hati tisa
condi tion pr ecedentt ot he r ightof appealt hatt he
quest ionofl awuponwhi chi ti sdesi r
edt oappealshoul d
hav ebeenr aisedbef oret hecount ycour tjudgeatt het ri
al.
Ifthepoi nt,thatt herewasnoev idenceofnegl igence,had
beenmadebyt hedef endant satt het r
ial,Iam ofopi nion
they woul d be now ent itled t oj udgment ;but ,i n my
opinion, thatpoi ntisnotnow open,andt hecasemustbe
deal twi t
h,assumi ngt hef i
ndi ngsoft hej uryast ot he
negl i
genceoft hedef endant s
Hewor ked f ormont hs,knowi ng t here wasno speci al
war nert ocaut i
onhi m, butr unni nghi schanceof
gettingoutoft heway ,whent hecr anewoul dot herwise
passov erhi shead.Hewas, inmyopi ni
on, bot hsci ensand
volensast oal lthedangerexceptt hatar isingf rom unf it
machi ner y.Oft hatdangerhewasnotawar e.Imor et han
doubti texi stedatall;butther ightofappeal isast atutable
one:t her espondent shav enotbr oughtt hemsel veswi thi
n
thest atute,i nnotobjecti”ngatt het ri
altot hewantofany
evi
dencet osuppor tthef ir
stf i
nding;whi l
ei tst ands,t he
maxi m,“ Volentinonf i
tinjuria,appear sinappl icable.How
cant hepl ainti
ffbehel dtov oluntari
lyincuradangerf rom
unfitmachi nery,theunf i
tnessofwhi chhewasadmi tt
edly
notawar eof ?ThecaseofThomasv .Quar ter mainef orthe
same r eason i s no aut hor i
tyf or the r espondent s'
cont ent i
on.
Inr esul t,Iam ofopi niont hatt heappel lanti sent i
tl
edt o
succeedont hecour set hecasehast aken,andwi t
ht he
l
imi tedr ightofr evi
ewaccor dedt otheDi v i
sionalCour t
, t
o
theCour tofAppeal ,ortoy ourLor dships'House.

Accor
dingt
oLORDBRAMWELL:
—

Therewasnoev idenceofnegligenceinthedefendants
causingtheacci dent.Therecertai
nlywasnone; butitis
saidthiswasnotopent othedefendants.Li
ndleyL.J.
givesjudgment
thesameway ;hisjudgmentisofext r
aimportance,
becausei tshewst hatYarmout hv.France,reli
edonf or
theplaint
iff,i
snot ,i
ntheopinionofLindleyL.J.whowas
partytoit,againstthedefendants.HisLordshipsays:-I
f
peoplewi l
l ent
erintodangerousempl oyment ,t
heydoso
withoutmaki ngot herpeopl eliablef orinjur i
est hey
sustain.Ici teal sohi sLor dshi p'sopini ont oj ustifymyown,
thatt hej ur ywer el ed
awaybysy mpat hy ,fortheyf oundmat terst hatwer enoti n
theleastwar rant edbyt heev idence.It hinkt her ewasno
evidenceofnegl igenceatal l. LopesL. J.say sthesame.
Thiscasei scl ear l
ywi thint hedeci sionst hathav ebeen
pronouncedi nthe
Cour tbel ow, andi nt hisCour t,i
nwhi chi thasbeenhel d,
andIt hi nkmostpr oper lyhel d, t
hataper sonwhoi s
engagedt oper form adanger ousoper ationt akest her i
sk
oftheoper ationoft hewor kt hathei scal ledont oper form.
Ast ot hat ,therenev erwasanydoubtbef oret he
Empl oy ers' Liabili
t yAct ,norsi nce.Ithinkt hati sav eryneat
andf orci blewayofput t
ingi t.Hegi vesj udgmentf orthe
defendant sal soonanot hergr ound, viz.,thatt her ewasno
evidenceofnegl igencei nt hedef endant scausi ngt he
accident .Ther ecer tainl
ywasnone; buti tissai dt hiswas
notopent ot hedef endant s.Li ndleyL. J.gi vesj udgment
thesameway ;hi sj udgmenti sofext r
ai mpor tance,
becausei tshewst hatYar mout hv .France, r eli
edonf or
theplai ntiff,i
snot , i
nt heopi ni onofLi ndleyL. J.whowas
partytoi t,againstt hedef endant s.Hi sLor dshi psay s:If
peoplewi l
l enteri ntodanger ousempl oyment ,t
heydoso
withoutmaki ngot herpeopl eliablef orinjur i
est hey
sustain.Ici teal sohi sLor dshi p'sopini ont oj ustifymyown,
thatthej urywer el ed
awaybysy mpat hy ,fortheyf oundmat terst hatwer enoti n
theleastwar rant edbyt heev idence.It hinkther ewasno
evidenceofnegl i
genceatal l
.LopesL. J.say st hesame.
Thiscasei scl earlywi t
hint hedeci sionst hathav ebeen
pronouncedi nt he
Cour tbel ow, andi nthisCour t,i
nwhi chi thasbeenhel d,
andIt hinkmostpr operlyheld, t
hataper sonwhoi s
engagedt oper form adanger ousoper ationt akest her isk
oftheoper ationoft hewor kt hathei scal ledont oper form.
Ast ot hat, therenev erwasanydoubtbef oret he
Empl oy ers' Li
abi l
i
tyAct ,norsi nce.het hinkt hati sav ery
neatandf orcibl ewayofput t
ingit.Hegi v esj udgmentf or
thedef endant sal soonanot herground, v iz.,thatt her ewas
noev idenceofnegl i
gencei nt hedef endant scausi ngt he
accident .peopl ewi llenterintodanger ousempl oy ment ,
theydosowi thoutmaki ngot herpeopl e
l
iablef orinj uriest heysust ain.Ici
teal sohi sLor dshi p'
s
opiniont oj ust ifymyown, t
hatt hej urywer eledawayby
sympat hy, fort heyf oundmat tersthatwer enoti nt hel east
war r
ant edbyt heev i
dence.It hinkt herewasnoev idence
ofnegl igenceatal l.

Accor
dingt
oLORDMORRI
S:-

Therespondentsi
nnotsuppl
yi
ngmeansofwar ni
ngwhen
thest
oneswer ebei
ngji
bbed,
donotavai
lthenpl
aint
if
f.He
under tookadanger ouswor kofdr i
ll
i
nghol es, whileov er
hishead( unlesshemov edaway )stoneswer ebei ng
hauledbyacr ane.Thatwor kheent ereduponknowi ngi t
wasdanger oust othatext ent .
Hewor kedf ormont hs, knowi ngt herewasnospeci al
war nert ocaut ionhi m, butrunni nghi schanceofget ting
outoft heway ,whent hecr anewoul dot her wisepassov er
hishead.Hewas, inmyopi ni on, both
sciensandv ol
ensast oal lthedangerexceptt hatar ising
from unf itmachi nery .Oft hatdangerhewasnotawar e.I
mor et handoubti texi stedatal l;butt her i
ghtofappeal is
ast atutabl eone: ther espondent shav enotbr ought
themsel veswi thint hest atut e, i
nnotobj ect i
ngatt het rial
tothewantofanyev idencet osuppor tthef irstfinding;
whilei tstands, themax i
m, Vol ent inonf itinjuria,appear s
i
nappl icabl e.Howcant hepl ai ntiffbehel dt ov oluntar i
ly
i
ncuradangerf r
om unf i
tmachi ner y,theunf i
tnessof
whichhewasadmi ttedl ynotawar eof?
Inresul t,Iam ofopi ni onthatt heappel l
anti sent itl
edt o
succeedont hecour set hecasehast aken, andwi ththe
l
imi tedr i
ghtofr eviewaccor dedt ot heDi vi
si onal Cour t
, to
theCour tofAppeal .

REPRESENTATI
ONS
Sol
i
cit
orsf
orappel
l
ant
:-J.H.Br
idgf
ordf
orLongbot
tom&
Sons,Hal
if
ax.
Sol
ici
tor
sforrespondent
s:-Wat
son,
Sons&Room f
orNei
l
l
&Broadbent,
Bradfor
d.

ORDEROFCOURT:
-
OrderoftheCour tofAppeal rever
sedandor deroft he
Queen'sBenchDi visi
onrestored:therespondentstopay
totheappellantthecostsintheCour tofAppeal andthe
costsincurr
edbyhi mi nrespectofhisappeal tothi
s
House, t
hecost sinthi
sHouset obetaxedint hemanner
usualwhent heappel l
antsuesinf or
m pauperis:cause
remit
tedt otheQueen'sBenchDi v
isi
on.Lords'Journals
21stJuly1891.

CONCLUSI
ONS:
-
TheHouseofLordsdecisi
oninSmithv.Baker&Sons
[
1891] wasthef
ir
stcaseinwhichthedefenceof"Vol
ent
i
nonfi
tinj
uri
a"wasli
mitedinemployeesi
tuati
ons.
Iti
saquest ionoffacti
neachcasewhethert
heknowledge
oftheplainti
ffi
ntheparti
cul
arci
rcumst
ancesmadeitso
unreasonableforhimtodowhathedidastoconst
it
ute
contri
butorynegli
gence.
Whenawor kmanengagedi nanempl oy mentnoti nit
self
danger ousi sexposedt odangerar isi
ngf r
om anoper ati
on
i
nanot herdepar tmentov erwhi chhehasnocont rol-the
dangerbei ngcreatedorenhancedbyt henegl i
genceoft he
empl oyer-t hemer ef actthatheunder takesorcont i
nues
i
nsuchempl oymentwi thf ullknowledgeand
under standingoft hedangeri snotconcl usivetoshow
thathehasunder takent her i
sksoast omaket hemax im
"Volenti nonf i
tinj
uria"applicableincaseofi njury.The
quest i
onwhet herhehassounder takent her i
skisoneof
factandnotofl aw.Andt hi
ssobot hatcommonl awand
i
ncasesar isi
ngundert heEmpl oyersLi abil
it
yAct1880

Obi
tor
-
Wor
  ds 
of 
an 
opi
nion 
ent
ir
ely
 unnecessar
y f
or 
the 
deci
sion 
of 
the 
case.
 A 
remar
k made 
or 
opi
nio
n 
expressed  by 
a j
udge i
na deci
sion upon a 
cause,
 "
by t
he way",
 
that 
i
s, 
incidental
ly 
or col
l
aterall
y,
 and not
 direct
ly 
upon t
he question bef
ore t
he 
court 
or 
upon a 
point
not necessaril
y i
nvol
ved in 
t
he deter
mi nati
on of 
the 
cause, 
or 
introduced 
by way 
of 
il
lust
rati
on,
 or
 analogy or 
argument. 
Such
 
are not 
bindingas pr
ecedent.s