Legal Definitions - common-employment doctrine

The common-employment doctrine, also known as the fellow-servant rule, was a historical legal principle that limited an employer's liability for injuries sustained by an employee due to the negligence of a co-worker. Under this doctrine, an employee was presumed to have accepted the inherent risks of their job, including the risk of injury caused by the carelessness or mistakes of their fellow employees. This meant that if one employee was injured by another employee's negligence, the injured worker typically could not sue their employer for damages. The doctrine has largely been abolished or superseded by modern workers' compensation laws, which provide a no-fault system for compensating injured workers.

• Example 1: Manufacturing Plant Accident

  Imagine a textile factory in the late 19th century. A worker operating a loom fails to properly secure a safety guard, and a piece of machinery detaches, striking and injuring another worker who is performing maintenance on an adjacent machine. The injured worker seeks compensation from the factory owner.

  How it illustrates the doctrine: Under the common-employment doctrine, the factory owner could argue that the injury was caused by the negligence of a "fellow servant" (the loom operator), not by the owner's direct fault. Therefore, the injured worker would likely be barred from suing the employer for their injuries, as they were deemed to have assumed the risk of such an incident as part of their employment.

• Example 2: Railway Yard Incident

  Consider a busy railway yard where a team of workers is shunting train cars. A switchman mistakenly directs a train car onto the wrong track, causing it to collide with another car where a different worker is performing an inspection. The inspecting worker is severely injured in the collision.

  How it illustrates the doctrine: In a jurisdiction where the common-employment doctrine was in effect, the railway company (the employer) could use this rule as a defense. They would contend that the injury resulted from the negligence of a co-worker (the switchman), and thus, the company itself was not liable for the injured worker's damages, shifting the burden of the accident onto the employees themselves.

• Example 3: Construction Site Mishap

  On a construction site, a crew is erecting scaffolding. One worker improperly fastens a support brace, and later that day, another worker climbing the scaffolding relies on that brace, which gives way, causing them to fall and sustain injuries.

  How it illustrates the doctrine: Historically, the construction company could invoke the common-employment doctrine. They would argue that the injury was a direct result of the negligence of a "fellow servant" (the worker who improperly fastened the brace), rather than a failure on the part of the employer. Consequently, the injured worker would have little legal recourse against the company for their injuries under this doctrine.