In regards to the history of emplyers liability the law has developed quite sunbstantially from its ‘llassies faire’ attitude carried along throughout the late ninteent century where it was seen that any injuries sustained to their employee or plaintiff did not impose any sort of negligence on the emplyer or defendant. It was understodd that if an employee chose to work in that workplace, whether it be dangerous or not, it would be wrong for the employee to claim any sort of negligence or obligations to compensate when a disaster may occure. traditionally the employers were protected under the common law. They felt that the industry was to vital to the progress and sustainability of society that although the labour industry working condiotions may have been poor, in the long run the benefits of it outweighed the risks. Therefore any actions taken by the employee to liability for injuries cause by the neglegamce of the employer were ignored. The doctrine of common employment implied to all working contracts that employee will accept any sort of risks that followed emploment aswell as any injuries abtained from other employees. In (Priestly v Fowler (1837) 3 M & W1)p.115 Val Corbett, tort second ed.) the defence provided that
In regards to the history of emplyers liability the law has developed quite sunbstantially from its ‘llassies faire’ attitude carried along throughout the late ninteent century where it was seen that any injuries sustained to their employee or plaintiff did not impose any sort of negligence on the emplyer or defendant. It was understodd that if an employee chose to work in that workplace, whether it be dangerous or not, it would be wrong for the employee to claim any sort of negligence or obligations to compensate when a disaster may occure. traditionally the employers were protected under the common law. They felt that the industry was to vital to the progress and sustainability of society that although the labour industry working condiotions may have been poor, in the long run the benefits of it outweighed the risks. Therefore any actions taken by the employee to liability for injuries cause by the neglegamce of the employer were ignored. The doctrine of common employment implied to all working contracts that employee will accept any sort of risks that followed emploment aswell as any injuries abtained from other employees. In (Priestly v Fowler (1837) 3 M & W1)p.115 Val Corbett, tort second ed.) the defence provided that