62 THE LAW AFFECTING ENGINEEES 



excuse for them to say that it was essential that some part of 

 the district of the company should be cut off, and that the 

 part of the district where the complainant lived was selected 

 as causing the least public inconvenience. It is apprehended 

 that if a breakdown were to occur owing to the negligence of 

 the station engineer, he would be guilty of conduct which 

 would justify his instant dismissal. But it would be for the 

 employers to prove their case ; and if he could retort that the 

 accident was due to their ignoring his advice as to the purchase 

 of new plant, etc., he would probably be acquitted of the 

 charge. If an accident occurred which was due to the negli- 

 gence of a subordinate, it is not easy to define the position of 

 the engineer. Of course, if he had the selection and appoint- 

 ment of the men employed at the station he would, to a certain 

 extent, be responsible for their good behaviour. But if he 

 could show that he took all proper steps to select competent 

 artificers it is anticipated that he would not be personally 

 liable for accidents which happened through their carelessness. 



13. Liability for injuries to strangers. The engineer in 

 charge of a generating station or other place where there is 

 moving machinery, should take the precaution of posting near 

 the entrance to the machinery-room a notice to the effect that 

 there is " No admission except on business." Great care 

 should be exercised in allowing visitors to inspect the 

 machinery, for when a man comes into a dangerous place by 

 invitation the person inviting him may have to pay damages if 

 there is an accident. Of course, a mere trespasser takes the risk 

 upon himself. So that a person entering the station without 

 leave or licence would only have himself to blame in case of acci- 

 dent. With regard to children, however, steps should be taken to 

 prevent their having access to the works on any consideration ; 

 for if a door abutting on the street is left open, and a child 

 comes in " to see the wheels go round " and is injured, the 

 supply company may be held responsible, although the child was 

 a trespasser. This rule is founded on good sense, for it is the 

 instinct of a child to meddle with dangerous machinery (see 

 Harold v. Watney, 1898, 2 Q. B. 320). Danger of this kind may 

 be avoided by placing a half-door at the front entrance and 

 keeping it always shut. (See further as to employers' liability 

 for accidents, Chap. XVII., 12 post.) 



