Master And Servant - Definition - Law Dictionary Home Dictionary Definition master-and-servant

Definition :

Master and servant, a relation whereby a person calls in the assistance of others, where his own skill and labour are not sufficient to carry out his own business or purpose. See LABOURERS.

Servants are of several descriptions:- 1st Servants in husbandry. These are very generally hired by the year, as from Michaelmas to Michaelmas, and this is an entire hiring for a year; and, unless otherwise stipulated, no wages are payable until the end of the year. Consult Burn's Justice, tit. 'Servants.'

2nd Servants in particular trades. These (who are now more frequently termed 'workmen,' their masters being termed 'employers') are subject to the control of the magistrates under the (English) Employers and Workmen Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Vict. c. 90), and by the Truck Acts (see that title) their wages must be paid in coin.

3rd Apprentices. These are placed with the master to learn his trade, with a view hereafter of following it themselves. See APPRENTICE.

4th Menial or domestic servants. If no terms be stipulated, it is considered a hiring with reference to the general understanding on the subject, that is, a continuing service until the expiration of a month's warning given by either party.

It is not compulsory in England for a master or mistress to give a discharged servant any character, and no action is sustainable for the refusal, Carroll v. Bird, (1800) 3 Esp 201. But if a character be given, it must accord with the truth; for if a false good character he given, and the servant afterwards rob his new master, the person who gave such false character is liable to an action, and to compensate for the entire loss; and he is liable to punishment in certain cases of false character under the Servants' Characters Act, 1792 (32 Geo. 3, c. 56). And if a bad character be untrully and maliciously given, the party giving it will be liable to an action for defamation, though, until the untruth of the character given and express malice have been proved, the communication is presumed to have been privileged, and no action is sustainable.

A stranger who deprives a master of the services of his servant by enticing him away in breach of his contract of service, or by some other wrongful act, is liable for the damage thus occasioned to the master.

A master is liable civilly for torts committed by his servant in the course of or under colour of his employ, but not for any wilful misfeasance of the servant. To this general liability the Common Law, as laid down in Priestly v. Fowler, (1837) 3 M&W 1, made the important exception that the master was not liable to a servant for the tort of a 'fellow-servant,' a term to which a very comprehensive meaning has been given by the cases. This defence is termed the defence of 'common employment' (see that title). But the Employers' Liability Act, 1880, has much modified this exception, by depriving the master of the defence of common employment in the case of negligence by a fellow-servant who occupied a position of superintendence. The doctrine of common employment applies to claims based on the negligence of a fellow-servant in the provision or maintenance of plant and property used in the master's business, see Fanton v. Denville, (1932) 2 KB 309.

The Workmen's Compensation Acts provide a statutory compensation for workmen who meet with accidents in their employment. See WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT.

As to settlement of disputes betwee employers and workmen, see CONCILIATION.

Consult Manley Smith,or Macdonell, and Chitty's Statutes, tit. 'Master and Servant,' on the law of master and servant generally.