Smith v Baker [1891] AC 325
Smith v Baker [1891] AC 325
Court: House of Lords (UK)
Year: 1891
Background and Facts
The case involved an employee, Smith, who worked at a quarry.
During his employment, Smith was exposed to the risk of injury due to stones being dropped from above while he was working below.
He repeatedly objected to the dangerous working conditions but was compelled by his employer to continue working in the same place.
Eventually, Smith was injured by a stone that fell from above.
Smith sued his employer, Baker, for negligence.
Legal Issue
Whether the employer was liable for negligence for the injuries caused to Smith while he was working under dangerous conditions that he had expressly refused to work under, but was forced to continue.
More specifically, did Smith’s knowledge and acceptance of the risk amount to consent (volenti non fit injuria), thereby absolving the employer of liability?
Principle of Law
The case is primarily concerned with the defense of volenti non fit injuria (to a willing person, no injury is done) in negligence claims, particularly in the context of employment and workplace risks.
Court’s Reasoning and Judgment
The House of Lords held that Smith had not consented to the risk voluntarily, even though he continued to work under protest.
Smith’s objections and refusal to work under those conditions showed he did not willingly accept the risk.
The employer was therefore liable for negligence in failing to provide a safe working environment.
The court emphasized that an employee cannot be taken to have consented to a risk if they are compelled to work in those conditions due to the nature of employment.
Hence, volenti non fit injuria could not be invoked as a defense in this case.
Key Legal Principles Established
Volenti non fit injuria requires free and voluntary consent to the risk. Mere continued employment or presence in a dangerous environment under protest does not constitute consent.
Employers have a duty of care to provide safe working conditions.
An employee’s objection to dangerous conditions negates any presumption of consent to the risk.
The defense of volenti cannot be used to excuse the employer from liability where the employee did not willingly accept the risk.
Relevant Case Law in Context
Watson v. British Boxing Board of Control (2001): On consent and assumption of risk in sports injuries, affirming that consent must be voluntary and informed.
Wilsons & Clyde Coal Co. Ltd v. English (1938) AC 57: Established the employer’s duty to provide safe working conditions.
ICI Ltd v. Shatwell [1965] AC 656: Discussed volenti defense where workers knowingly accepted risks.
Smith v Baker remains a foundational case on the limits of volenti in employment injury cases.
Summary Table
| Aspect | Principle / Outcome |
|---|---|
| Facts | Employee injured working under dangerous conditions |
| Employee’s stance | Objected but continued to work |
| Legal issue | Whether employee consented to risk (volenti) |
| Court’s finding | No free consent; employer liable for negligence |
| Duty of employer | Provide safe working environment |
| Volenti defense | Not applicable if consent is not voluntary and free |
Conclusion
Smith v Baker [1891] AC 325 is a landmark case in English tort law that clarifies the application of the volenti non fit injuria defense in the context of workplace injuries. It protects employees from being deemed to have consented to risks where they objected but were compelled to work under hazardous conditions. The case reinforces the employer’s strict duty of care and limits the defense of voluntary assumption of risk.
RELATED Blog
0 comments