41 & 42 Vict. c. 16, Percussion-cap works. works. matches or in mixing the chemical materials for making them, or in any process incidental to making lucifer-matches, except the cutting of the wood; (5) "Percussion-cap works," that is to say, any place in which persons work for hire in making percussion caps, or in mixing or storing the chemical materials for making them, or in any process incidental to making percussion caps; Cartridge (6) "Cartridge works," that is to say, any place in which persons work for hire in making cartridges, or in any process incidental to making cartridges, except the manufacture of the paper or other material that is used in making the cases of the cartridges; Paper staining works. Fustiancutting works. Blast furnaces. Copper mills. Iron mills. (7) "Paper-staining works," that is to say, any place (8) "Fustian-cutting works," that is to say, any place or other furnace or premises in or on which the (10) "Copper mills "; (11) "Iron mills," that is to say, any mill, forge, or other premises in or on which any process is carried on for converting iron into malleable iron, steel, or tin plate, or for otherwise making or converting steel; Foundries. (12) "Foundries," that is to say, iron foundries, copper foundries, brass foundries, and other premises or places in which the process of founding or casting any metal is carried on, except any premises or 41 & 42 Vict. c. 16, indiarubber places in which such process is carried on by not more than five persons and as subsidiary to the Sched. 4. repair or completion of some other work; (13) "Metal and india-rubber works," that is to say, Metal and any premises in which steam, water, or other mechanical power is used for moving machinery works. employed in the manufacture of machinery or in the manufacture of any article of metal not being machinery, or in the manufacture of india-rubber or gutta-percha, or of articles made wholly or partially of india-rubber or gutta-percha; (14) "Paper mills," that is to say, any premises in Paper which the manufacture of paper is carried on; 66 mills. works. factories. (15) Glass works," that is to say, any premises in Glass which the manufacture of glass is carried on; (16) "Tobacco factories," that is to say, any premises Tobacco in which the manufacture of tobacco is carried on; (17) "Letter-press printing works," that is to say, any Letterpremises in which the process of letterpress printing is carried on; press printing. binding (18) "Bookbinding works," that is to say, any premises Bookin which the process of bookbinding is carried on; works. (19) "Flax scutch mills." Flax scutch mills. PART TWO. Non-Textile Factories and Workshops. (20) "Hat works," that is to say, any premises in which Hat incidental works. works. the manufacture of hats or any process to their manufacture is carried on ; (21) "Rope works," that is to say, any premises being Rope a ropery, rope-walk, or rope work in which is carried on the laying or twisting or other process of preparing or finishing the lines, twines, cords, or ropes, and in which machinery moved by steam, 41 & 42 Vict. c. 16, Bakehouses. Lace ware houses. Shipbuilding yards. water, or other mechanical power is not used for (24) "Shipbuilding yards," that is to say, any premises Quarries. (25) "Quarries," that is to say, any place not being a Pit-banks. (26) "Pit-banks," that is to say, any place above ground adjacent to a shaft of a mine, in which place the employment of women is not regulated by the Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1872, or the Metalliferous Mines Regulation Act, 1872, whether such place does or does not form part of the mine within the meaning of those Acts. 35 & 36 Vict. c. 76. 35 & 36 Vict. c. 77. 1 APPENDIX C. THE DOCTRINE OF RES IPSA LOQUITUR. THE question how far an accident is itself evidence of negligence frequently arises under the Employers' Liability Act, 1880, and is of great importance. The answer to the question depends on the nature of the accident. "In some cases, res ipsa loquitur, the accident may be of such a nature that negligence may be presumed from the mere occurrence of it. But when the balance is even, the onus is on the party who relies on the negligence of the other to turn the scale": Lord Esher, M. R. (a), quoting Lord Denman, speaking generally. The mere happening of an accident is not sufficient evidence of negligence to be left to the jury; but the plaintiff must give some affirmative evidence of negligence on the part of the defendant (b). But where the thing is shown to be under the management of the defendant or his servants, and the accident is such as in the ordinary course of things does not happen if those who have the management use proper care, it affords reasonable evidence, in the absence of explanation by the defendants, that the accident arose from want of care (c). The following are the principal cases : NO EVIDENCE OF NEGLIGENCE. 1860, Cotton v. Wood, 8 C. B., N. S. 568; 29 L. J., C. P. 333. In an action for negligent driving, the judge will not be justified in leaving the case to the jury when the plaintiff's evidence is equally consistent with the absence as with the existence of negligence in the defendant. 1872, Hanson v. Lancashire & Yorkshire R. Co., 20 W. R. 297. 1862, Hammack v. White, 31 L. J., C. P. 129. 1865, Scott v. London Dock Co., 3 H. & C. 596; 34 L. J., Ex. 1862, Hammack v. White, 31 L. J., C. P. 129. The mere happening of an accident is not sufficient evidence of negligence to be left to the jury; but the plaintiff must give some affirmative evidence of negligence on the part of the defendant. 1866, Higgs v. Maynard, 14 L. T., N. S. 332. The plaintiff was employed by a firm occupying premises separated from the premises of the defendant by a passage. In this passage the plaintiff was at his usual work, when some glass fell into his eye from an upper window in the defendant's premises. The evidence proved that the window was broken by a ladder from the inside falling upon it, but failed to prove who caused its fall, or that it was caused by the defendant. The plaintiff was non-suited. Held, that the non-suit was right, as there was nothing to connect the defendant with the accident. 1869, Moffatt v. Bateman, L. R., 3 P. C. 115. Action for negligence by the defendant in conveying the plaintiff, who was in his service, to perform for him certain work. The defendant drove, and while on the road the ringbolt of the carriage broke, the horses bolted, and the plaintiff was injured. Held, no evidence of negligence in defendant. 1869, Welfare v. L. & B. R. Co., L. R., 4 Q. B. 693; 33 L. J., Q. B. 241. In an action for negligence against a railway company, the plaintiff proved that he went to their station for the purpose of travelling by their railway, and made some inquiries respecting the departure of trains, and was directed by a porter of the defendants to look at a time-table suspended on a wall under a portico of the station. While there, a plank and a roll of zinc fell through a hole in the roof upon the plaintiff and injured him, and at the same time a man was seen on the roof of the portico. The judge non-suited the plaintiff. Held, that the non-suit was right. Cockburn, C.J., said that it was the universal practice that in a great city persons do not employ their own |