194 THE LAW AFFECTING ENGINEEKS 



The necessity for his entering into some definite arrange- 

 ment with the head contractor was illustrated in a very recent 

 case (Greemvood v. Hawkins, 1907, 23 T. L. E. 72). There 

 a builder agreed to employ a sub-contractor to do the carving. 

 The written order which constituted the contract concluded : 

 " You agree in accepting this order to sign and send per return 

 of post the enclosed accident indemnity." The document in 

 question was to hold the builder harmless against all claims 

 under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897, by any person 

 in the defendant's employment upon such work in respect of 

 any accident. The defendant did not return any answer to 

 the order, nor did he sign the indemnity form, but he went on 

 with the work. An accident happened to a workman employed 

 by him upon the work, for which the contractor had to pay 

 compensation under the Act of 1897. The contractor claimed 

 indemnity from the defendant. It was held that the defendant 

 executed the work upon the footing of the order given to him 

 by the contractor and of the indemnity enclosed with it, 

 and that he was liable to indemnify the contractor. 



It may be mentioned, in this connection, that by Sect. 4 (1) 

 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906, while liability is 

 expressly placed upon the head contractor where there is a 

 sub-contract, nothing in the section is to be construed so as to 

 prevent a workman recovering compensation under the Act 

 from his immediate, instead of his more remote, employer. 

 Further, the principle of indemnity is recognised in Sub- 

 sect. (2). 



Whatever may be the general law as to the responsibility of 

 an employer for the negligence of a workman employed by a 

 sub-contractor, it is clear that, if the works under construction 

 are such as to involve risk to persons using the highway, the 

 employer may be made directly responsible. Thus in Halliday 

 v. National Telephone Co., 1899, 2 Q. B. 392, the defendants 

 had employed a plumber to connect tubes through which 

 certain wires passed. The works were in a street. The 

 plumber, who employed his own men, had to work to the 

 satisfaction of the defendants' foreman. The plaintiff, who 

 was passing by in the street, was injured by a spurt of molten 

 metal, caused by the negligence of one of the plumber's men 

 who was working with a man employed by the defendants. 

 The plaintiff sued the National Telephone Company who sought 

 to escape liability on the ground that the plumber was an 



