xs
This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Learn more

ICI v Shatwell [1965] AC 656

Country:
United Kingdom
  • Contrary to the company’s (Defendant) orders and law, a miner, X, asked Plaintiff “shall we do” an illegal and dangerous explosives test, to which Plaintiff relied “yes”.

  • They were injured and Plaintiff sued Defendant for its employee’s negligence.

  • HL held that where two fellow-servants combined to disobey an order deliberately though they knew the risk involved, volenti non fit injuria was a complete defence if the employer was not himself at fault and was only liable vicariously for the acts of the fellow servant.

  • The statutory regulations did not change this. 

Lord Reid

  • There is a difference between where Plaintiff and Defendant deliberately conspire to take an action despite knowing the risk involved and a case where Plaintiff and Defendant collaborate carelessly causing harm to one of them.

  • In the first case (deliberate) Violenti non fit iniuria is a full defence and in the second (carelessness) contributory negligence is a partial defence.

  • If Plaintiff “invited or freely aided and abetted his fellow-servant's disobedience,” then he was “volens” and the defence applies. 

Any comments or edits about this case?
Get in touch