 | 1902 - 548 페이지
..."The master Is not exempt from liability, l>ec»use the servant has better means of providing for bis safety, when he Is employed In immediate connection with those from whose negligence he might >uffer; but because the implied contract of the master does not extend to Indemnify the servant agaiuit... | |
 | 1881 - 572 페이지
...switchman. "The master," said Chief Justice Sh'aw, "is not exempt from liability because the servant has better means of providing for his safety when he is employed in immediate connexion with those from whose negligence he might suffer; but because the implied contract of the... | |
 | 1912 - 1074 페이지
...duty, it is said: "The master is not excused from liability, in such case, because the servant has better means of providing for his safety when he is...servant because the person suffering does not stand this ruling as not, however unconsciously, introducing the notion that to some extent the man bad taken... | |
 | 1889 - 1232 페이지
...does not exist. The master, in the case supposed, is not exempt from liability because the servant has better means of providing for his safety, when he...immediate connection with those from whose negligence lie might suffer, but because the implied contract of the master does not extend to indemnify the servant... | |
 | Sir William Searle Holdsworth - 1926 - 546 페이지
...the public — "the master in the case supposed is not exempt from liability, because the servant has better means of providing for his safety, when he is employed in immediate connexion with those from whose negligence he might suffer ; but because the implied contract of the... | |
 | 1891 - 1278 페이지
...does not exist. The master In the case supposed Is not- exempt from liability because the servant has better means of providing for his safety when he is...contract of the master does not extend to indemnify tlip servant against the negligence of any one but himself; * * * and he is not liable In tort as for... | |
 | New South Wales. Supreme Court - 1912 - 848 페이지
...law in the case of Priestley v. Fowler (3 M. & W. 1), was recognised, " not because the servant has better means of providing for his safety when he is...to indemnify the servant against the negligence of anyone but himself ; and he is not liable in tort as for the negligence of his servant, because the... | |
 | Christopher L. Tomlins - 1993 - 432 페이지
...employee's contractual assumption of the risks of his employment. The master was exempt from liability "because the implied contract of the master does not...servant against the negligence of any one but himself" (45 Mass. 49, at 60-1). * Harwell's suit had cited medical expenses of $500, which offers a different... | |
 | John W. Johnson - 2001 - 608 페이지
...exist." The chief justice maintained that the "implied contract [between the employer and employee] . . . does not extend to indemnify the servant against the negligence of any one but himself." Shaw, therefore, rejected the "different division" argument and found for the defendant railroad corporation,... | |
 | Cento G. Veljanovski - 2007 - 7 페이지
...is not exempt from liability because the servant has better means of providing for his safety . . . but because the implied contract of the master does...to indemnify the servant against the negligence of anyone but himself 74 Assop v. Yatcs (1858) 27 LJ Ex. 156; Gallagher v. Pipes (1864) LT 718. 75 Posner,... | |
| |
The master, in the case supposed, is not exempt from liability, because the servant has better means of providing for his safety, when he is employed in immediate connection with those from whose negligence he might suffer ; but because the implied contract... 
