## Facts

- Charles Priestley, a 19-year-old servant employed by butcher Thomas Fowler, was directed to travel in Fowler’s van to assist with selling and delivering meat.
- The van, driven by another servant, William Beeton, was heavily loaded; the horses initially refused to move, and Beeton warned Fowler the load was dangerous.
- After the van departed, it made a cracking sound near Peterborough; a brief inspection at an inn revealed no defect.
- Soon after leaving Peterborough, the front axle broke; the van overturned and a substantial quantity of meat fell on Priestley.
- Priestley suffered severe injuries, including a broken thigh and a dislocated shoulder, and was incapacitated for weeks.
- At trial, a jury found the accident resulted from overloading and that the van was overloaded with Fowler’s knowledge; Priestley received a £100 verdict.
- Fowler moved in arrest of judgment, arguing the declaration stated no actionable duty owed by a master to a servant on these facts.

## Issues

1. Whether a master is liable to a servant for personal injuries arising from negligence occurring in the course of their employment, particularly negligence attributable to another servant engaged in the same work.
2. Whether the pleaded duty—providing a properly repaired, non-overloaded vehicle for the servant’s use—supports a tort action by the servant against the master on these facts.

## Decision

- The Court of Exchequer arrested the judgment for Priestley and refused to enter judgment on the jury’s verdict.
- The court held that, as pleaded, no action lay by the servant against the master for the injury.
- The court reasoned that the employment relationship differs from a carrier–passenger relationship and does not impose the same duty to ensure safe carriage.
- The court treated the servant as having accepted the ordinary risks of service, including risks arising from other servants’ negligence in the common employment.
- The court relied in part on policy concerns that recognizing such liability would create excessive and unmanageable litigation and burdens on masters.

## Legal Principles

- A servant is taken to accept the ordinary risks of the service as between servant and master, including risks arising from negligence of fellow servants engaged in the same common employment.
- Absent special circumstances, a master is not liable in tort to one servant for injuries caused by another servant’s negligence committed in the course of the common work.
- The master–servant relationship is not treated as analogous to carrier–passenger duties; the servant is part of the enterprise and not a paying stranger relying on an implied contract of safe carriage.
- Courts may decline to recognize a new duty of care in master–servant injury suits based on practical concerns about indeterminate liability and a multiplication of suits.

## Conclusion

The Court of Exchequer set aside the servant’s trial victory, holding that the pleadings did not support imposing tort liability on the master for injuries arising from workplace negligence associated with common employment, a rationale that became associated with the fellow-servant rule.


Priestly v. Fowler, 150 Eng. Rep. 1030 (Exch. 1837)