ENGINEEKS AND THE LAW OF NEGLIGENCE 61 



The consequences of negligence do not, however, stop short 

 at making good the immediate monetary loss which may be 

 sustained. A faulty design may involve disaster and personal 

 injuries, for which the engineer maybe held civilly responsible. 



In Mosdell v. Mitchell and others (Times, Jan. 20, 1891) 

 the widow of a workman brought an action under Lord 

 Campbell's Act against a building-owner, his contractor, and 

 architect, for the loss of her husband. It appeared that the 

 plaintiff's husband had been one of the workmen engaged in 

 erecting certain houses, of which one of the defendants was 

 the architect, and another the builder. After the houses had 

 been partly erected they fell, and the plaintiff's husband was 

 buried among the falling walls and killed. It was shown that 

 the fall of the building was due to a wall being too slight to 

 bear the strain put upon it. During the hearing the jury, on 

 the suggestion of the judge (Lord Coleridge, C.J.) stopped the 

 case as against the building-owner; but in the result they 

 gave a verdict of 500 against the builder and the architect 

 jointly. Arguing by analogy, it is possible that if a bridge 

 were to fall owing to the faulty design of an engineer he might 

 be held responsible in damages. 



12. Negligence of a station engineer. The question of 

 liability for negligence is of considerable importance to the 

 station engineer. Suppose that the working "set" in the 

 station suddenly fails, and, through some oversight on his 

 part, the " stand-by " set is also out of order. The result may 

 be to plunge a whole town in darkness. Is the engineer liable 

 for the consequences ? So long as a breakdown can be ex- 

 plained on the ground of the force majeure, or inevitable 

 accident, the supply authority are not liable to pay penalties 

 (see Electric Lighting (Clauses) Act, 1899, Sched. s. 30) ; but 

 if the company are unable to show that the stoppage was due 

 to circumstances over which they had no control, very serious 

 consequences may result, blame for which would naturally 

 attach to the engineer. To illustrate the nature of this 

 liability, it may be mentioned that where a cable laid down 

 proved to be defective, with the result that the supply of energy 

 broke down, this was held to be inevitable accident (Sun 

 Insurance Co. v. Dublin Corporation, Electrician, Dec. 9, 1899, 

 p. 240). Where, on the other hand, a company was sum- 

 moned for making default in supply, it was held to be no 



