208 WHO MAY RECOYEr. 



breach of contract, he cannot agjain sue on the srround of a 

 subsequent increase or dcYelopment of the damages arising 

 from the same act. (a) If, however, damage be done to pro- 

 perty and also to goods by the same act of neghgence, there 

 is a different cause of action, and recovery of compensation 

 for the damage to property is no bar to an action subse- 

 quently commenced for injury to the person.(6) Lord 

 Bramwell put the case thus : — one " cannot maintain an 

 action for a broken arm, and subsequently for a broken rib, 

 though he did not know of it when he commenced his first 

 action. But if he sustained two injuries from a blow, 

 one to his person, another to his property, as, for instance, 

 damage to a watch, there is no doubt that he could maintain 

 two actions in respect of the one blow."(c) 



Under the Employers Liability Act a workman injured by 

 any of the five enumerated causes in § 1, or, in case of his 

 death, his legal representatives, (cZ) has the same right of 

 compensation and the same remedies against the employer 

 as if he had not been a workman under the master's employ- 

 ment, and had been a member of the public. The statute 

 expressly excludes " domestic and menial servants."(e) In 

 Scotland, a tramway conductor has been held entitled to the 

 benefit of the Act ;(/) but in England an omnibus conductor 

 engaged at daily wages, and paid daily, was held not entitled 

 to the benefit of it.(g) A huntsman (A) and a "general 

 garden and stable hand " have been held to be menial 

 servants, (i) and thus not within the Act; but a dairy-maid 



(«) Stevenson v. Pontifex, 1887, 15 R. 125. 



(b) Brunsden v. Humphrey, 1884, L.R. 14 Q.B.D.141. 



(c) Barley Main Colliery Co. v. Mitchell, 1886, L.R. 11 App. Ca. 127-144. See 

 a strong dissent from this doctrine in Brunsden cit. by Lord Coleridge at 

 p. 153. 



(rf) 43 & 44 Vict. c. 42, § 1. 

 (c) Ibid. § 8 ; 38 & 39 Vict. c. 90, § 10. 

 (/) Wilson V. Glasgow Tramicays Co., 1878, 5 R. 981. 



(fj) Morijan v. L. Gen. Omnibus Co., 1883, 12 Q.B.D. 201 ; aff. 1884, 13 Q.B.D. 

 832. 



(/,) Nicoll V. Greaves, 1864, 17 C.B., N.S. 27. 

 (i) Johnson v. Blcnkensopp, 1841, 5 Jur. 870. 



