structural:summarization
Court of Appeal

So far as tort is concerned, I find it difficult to see how the law of tort can give an indemnity to the master. The master is made liable for a tort. Can he sue his servant for the self same tort? The common law regards the master as a tortfeasor: see The Koursk, per Scrutton LJ. The case comes within the rule that there is no contribution between tortfeasors. There is, of course, an exception which permits an innocent person to claim contribution or indemnity, but that exception only applies where the innocent person can rely on a contract for contribution or indemnity, express or implied. The master has no such contract. I do not think, therefore, that the common law would have permitted the master to sue in tort.