 | This articleneeds additional citations forverification. Please helpimprove this article byadding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Find sources: "Common employment" – news ·newspapers ·books ·scholar ·JSTOR(May 2018) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
Common employment was an historical defence inEnglish tort law that said workers implicitly undertook the risks of being injured by their co-workers, with whom they were in "common employment". TheUS labor law terminology was the "fellow servant rule".
The operation of the doctrinewas seen first inPriestly v Fowler in the United Kingdom. In the United States the doctrine was seen inFarwell v. Boston & Worcester R.R. Corp.[1][2]
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 February 1894, 15 fatalities occurred at the mine.[3]
As Australia experienced a relatively influentiallabour movement in the late 19th and early 20th century, statutory compensation was implemented very early in Australia. Each territory has its own legislation and its own governing body.
William Ralph Meredith was instrumental in creating the workers' compensation system inOntario,Canada.
It was abolished altogether by theLaw Reform (Personal Injuries) Act 1948 in theUnited Kingdom.
The doctrine has been superseded in the United States byworker's compensation laws, by which a worker can file for aquasi-tort, regardless of their co-worker's fault.
 | This article related toEnglish law is astub. You can help Wikipedia byexpanding it. |