Legal Case Brief
Wilsons & Clyde Co Ltd v English [1938] AC 57
Law of Tort – Negligence – Duty of Care – Safe System of Work – Damages – Delegation
Facts
The defendants had employed the complainant, Mr English. He was working on a repair to an airway on the Mine Jigger Brae, which was used as part of the haulage system. He was going to the bottom of the mine pit when the haulage was started. Although he had tried to evade the danger through a manhole, he was trapped by machinery and it crushed him to death. The defendants and employers, Wilsons & Clyde Co Ltd, tried to claim that it was Mr English’s own negligence that had resulted in his death; he could have taken an alternative route or alerted the employee in charge of the machinery for it to be stopped.
Issues
It was held that the defendants had delegated the organisation of a safe working system to one of their employees on the site and they had taken all reasonable steps to ensure they entrusted this duty to an experienced employee. Thus, they were held not to be liable for damages. The complainant appealed on the issue of whether employers had a non-delegable duty of care towards the safety of workers.
Decision/Outcome
The House of Lords decided that Wilsons & Clyde Co Ltd, as an employer, had a duty of care to ensure a safe system of work and this duty could not be fully delegated to another employee. Thus, the defendants always remain responsible for a safe workplace for their employees and are vicariously liable for any negligence of another. This duty includes three aspects; providing proper materials, employing competent workers and providing valuable supervision. The defendants were liable for damages.
Updated 21 March 2026
This case brief accurately summarises the decision in Wilsons & Clyde Co Ltd v English [1938] AC 57, which remains good law. The House of Lords’ recognition of the employer’s non-delegable duty to provide a safe system of work continues to be a foundational principle in employment and tort law.
However, readers should note a few points of context. First, the article’s description of the employer’s threefold duty is slightly incomplete as traditionally stated: the duty encompasses competent staff, adequate plant and equipment, a safe place of work, and a safe system of work — the article’s formulation (‘proper materials, employing competent workers and providing valuable supervision’) does not fully reflect the standard formulation. Second, while the article refers to ‘vicarious liability’, the duty of care established in this case is more precisely characterised as a personal non-delegable duty owed by the employer, which is distinct from vicarious liability; this conflation is a legal inaccuracy readers should be aware of. Third, subsequent case law — including Nettleship v Weston [1971] and more recently Various Claimants v Barclays Bank [2020] UKSC 13 and Various Claimants v Morrisons Supermarket [2020] UKSC 12 — has continued to develop the law on non-delegable duties and vicarious liability, and students should consult up-to-date sources on those developments. The core holding of this case as a landmark authority on employers’ non-delegable duty remains settled law.
