Scudder v. Woodbridge

Supreme Court of Georgia
1 Ga. 195 (1846)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The fellow servant rule, which generally relieves employers of liability for injuries to an employee caused by the negligence of a co-worker, does not apply when the injured employee is a hired slave.

Facts:

Amos Scudder owned a steamboat named the Ivanhoe.
Wylly Woodbridge owned a slave named Ned, who was a carpenter.
Woodbridge hired Ned out to Scudder to work as a carpenter on the Ivanhoe for a trip from Savannah to St. Mary's.
During the voyage, the boat required assistance to get off an obstruction.
While aiding in this effort, Ned became entangled in the water-wheel.
Ned drowned as a result of the accident.
The accident and death were caused by the carelessness and mismanagement of the boat's captain, who was employed by Scudder.

Procedural Posture:

Woodbridge sued Scudder in the Superior Court of Chatham County to recover the value of the slave.
The trial judge instructed the jury that Scudder was liable if the death was caused by his officers' negligence.
The jury returned a verdict in favor of Woodbridge for five hundred dollars.
Scudder excepted to the jury charge and appealed to the Supreme Court of Georgia.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Is a steamboat owner liable for the death of a hired slave caused by the negligence of the boat's captain, or does the fellow servant rule bar recovery against the employer?

Opinions:

Majority - Lumpkin

Yes, the owner is liable because the fellow servant rule cannot be legally or ethically extended to slave labor. The court reasons that while the general doctrine (fellow servant rule) is established in England and states like Massachusetts and South Carolina, its logic relies on the presumption of free agency. Free white agents can evaluate risks, monitor co-workers, and quit employment if they perceive danger or incompetence. Slaves, however, are compelled to serve; they cannot quit, cannot remonstrate against a superior's orders without risking punishment, and cannot testify against co-workers in court. Because slaves lack the power to protect themselves or negotiate their safety, the public policy rationale for the fellow servant rule fails. Therefore, to ensure the safety of slave property, the employer must be held strictly liable for the negligence of their other agents.

Analysis:

This case serves as a significant historical limitation on the developing 'fellow servant rule' in 19th-century American tort law. While courts in the North were expanding employer immunity to foster industrial growth (assuming workers accepted the risks of their employment), the Georgia Supreme Court carved out a necessary exception for the institution of slavery. The decision highlights the dual legal nature of enslaved people as both property and persons; the court emphasizes that because slaves lacked the civil rights to negotiate or litigate (the 'safety valves' of the free market labor theory), the law must impose stricter liability on hirers to incentivize the preservation of the 'property.'

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Scudder v. Woodbridge (1846)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"