Definition
Common employment was a common law doctrine providing that an employer was not liable to an employee for injuries caused by the negligence of a fellow employee, where both workers were engaged in a common undertaking or shared employment. Under the rule, when a worker accepted employment, he was understood to have assumed the risks arising from the carelessness of co-workers as part of the ordinary hazards of the job. The employer's liability to injured employees was accordingly barred or severely limited whenever the injury could be traced to a fellow servant rather than to the employer's own direct negligence or a non-delegable duty.
The doctrine is sometimes described as a sub-branch of the broader assumption of risk principle, but it operated as a distinct rule: even a worker who had no knowledge of a particular co-worker's incompetence and no practical ability to avoid the risk could be denied recovery simply because the injuring party was a fellow servant engaged in a common enterprise.
---
Common Confusion
COMMON EMPLOYMENT vs. ASSUMPTION OF RISK vs. CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE: These three defenses were historically deployed together against injured workers and are frequently conflated in older sources. They are analytically distinct. Assumption of risk addresses dangers inherent in the work itself that the employee knowingly accepted. Contributory negligence concerns the injured worker's own careless conduct. Common employment concerns the specific bar arising from the negligence of a third party — the fellow servant — rather than the plaintiff's own conduct or a known workplace hazard. In practice, employers often pleaded all three together, and courts sometimes collapsed the reasoning, which creates interpretive hazards when reading nineteenth-century opinions.
COMMON EMPLOYMENT vs. FELLOW SERVANT RULE: These terms describe the same doctrine. "Fellow servant rule" is the dominant American nomenclature. "Common employment" is the dominant English and Commonwealth nomenclature. Researchers moving between American and British sources must recognize that Rapalje & Lawrence and English authorities use "common employment" where American cases and most U.S. treatises will say "fellow servant rule." The concepts are substantively identical, though the case law and statutory history differ across jurisdictions.
---
Core Elements
For the doctrine to bar recovery, courts generally required that:
1. An employment relationship existed between the plaintiff and the defendant employer.
2. The person whose negligence caused the injury was also employed by the same employer.
3. Both the plaintiff and the negligent co-worker were engaged in a common or shared undertaking at the time of the injury.
4. The employer was not independently negligent (e.g., through failure to provide safe equipment, negligent hiring of a known incompetent, or breach of a non-delegable duty).
The third element — "common" undertaking — was the source of the most litigation. Courts split over whether workers in different departments, different grades of authority, or different physical locations could be "fellow servants" for purposes of the rule.
---
Why It Matters in Research
This term is essential for any researcher working in nineteenth or early twentieth century tort law, labor law, or the legislative history of workers' compensation. The doctrine was one of the primary legal obstacles workers faced in the industrial era, and its erosion tracks directly with the rise of employers' liability statutes and, ultimately, workers' compensation schemes.
Several navigational traps arise:
First, the terminology split. American sources use "fellow servant rule" while British and Commonwealth sources use "common employment." A search of either term alone in a cross-jurisdictional corpus will return incomplete results. Rapalje & Lawrence, as an American-and-English law dictionary, bridges this gap, but researchers should query both phrases.
Second, the doctrine was not monolithic. Courts developed significant exceptions — including the "vice principal" rule, which held that supervisory employees acting with the employer's delegated authority were not fellow servants but stood in the employer's own shoes. These exceptions vary considerably by jurisdiction and era, and opinions that appear to apply the doctrine may actually be deciding which exception applies.
Third, statutory displacement is uneven in historical sources. Employers' liability acts began chipping away at common employment in England with the Employers' Liability Act 1880 and in various American states through the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Workers' compensation legislation eventually rendered the doctrine largely academic for workplace injuries. Sources written before, during, and after this legislative transition use the term in different operative contexts. A treatise from 1875 is describing live law; a treatise from 1920 may be describing a doctrine already substantially abolished in most industrial states.
Fourth, the doctrine has no modern analog in most common law jurisdictions. Researchers encountering it in current materials will almost always be reading historical context, legislative history, or comparative law discussion.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Rapalje & Lawrence define common employment in terms consistent with the fellow servant rule, emphasizing that workers in the same general enterprise accept, as a condition of employment, the risks created by their co-workers' negligence. The dictionary's treatment reflects the doctrine in its mature form, before significant statutory erosion.
The historical dictionaries are collectively weakest on the exceptions and on the doctrine's jurisdictional fragmentation. Neither Rapalje & Lawrence nor comparable period sources fully account for the vice principal rule or the distinctions courts drew between workers of different grades or departments — distinctions that produced a century of inconsistent case law. Researchers relying solely on dictionary definitions will miss the practical complexity that courts imposed on what appeared to be a simple rule.
---
Jurisdictional Note
The doctrine developed primarily in English and American courts in the nineteenth century and spread throughout Commonwealth jurisdictions. It was substantially abolished by statute at different times in different places: England (Employers' Liability Act 1880, and more fully by later legislation), and across American states through a combination of employers' liability acts and workers' compensation statutes enacted between roughly 1910 and 1950. In most jurisdictions today, the doctrine is of historical interest only.
---