SUB-CONTRACTORS AND SUB- CONTRACTING 193 



denial that his work was defective causes the head contractor 

 to incur costs in defending himself against a claim by the 

 employer, the sub-contractor may have to pay those costs 

 as part of the damages. (See Prince of Wales Dry Dock 

 Co. v. Fownes Forge and Engineering Co., 1904, 90 L. T. 

 527.) 



Before deciding whether a sub-contractor is liable, strict 

 regard must be had to the terms of his employment. In a 

 recent case (Fulham Borough Council v. National Electric Co., 

 1906, 70 J. P. 55) a contract for the installation of electric 

 light in a building to be used for the purposes of public baths 

 and wash-houses provided (inter alia) "that the whole of 

 the work is to be carried out in accordance with the existing 

 rules as framed by the Phoenix Fire Office . . . . ' Rule 5 

 of these rules provided that " Where a system of metal tubes 

 is employed, the metal tubes should be earthed, except in those 

 cases where earthing would not be desirable." A system of 

 metal tubes was employed in the work, and, in consequence 

 of such tubes not being earthed, a bather received an electric 

 shock which caused his death. The local authority, which 

 owned the baths, paid damages in respect of his death. In 

 arbitration proceedings, in which the local authority sought 

 to recover the sum so paid from the contractors, the arbitrator 

 found that earthing the tubes would not have been desirable 

 so far as risk of fire was concerned, but would in fact have 

 been desirable so far as risk of accident to bathers was 

 concerned. It was held, upon the hearing of a special case 

 stated by the arbitrator, that inasmuch as the insurance 

 company's rules were framed for the prevention of fire, and 

 earthing was not desirable for that purpose, there had been no 

 breach of contract, and that therefore the wiring contractors 

 were not liable. 



12. Accidents to sub-contractor's workmen. Questions of 

 importance arise in relation to the liabilities of contractors 

 and sub-contractors under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 

 1906. It is manifest that in a case where a sub-contractor 

 employs men upon a big job he is exposed to a very serious 

 risk. His men must often climb to dizzy heights in carrying 

 out their work, and it is important to reflect that the sub- 

 contractor has in general no power or authority to take any 

 step which will minimise the risk of accidents. 



L.A.E. O 



