servant was not obliged to fulfil tasks if they were more dangerous than was usual in everyday dealings, did not correspond to a healthy and natural activity, or if they offended general morality. Consequently the servant was not obliged to perform work which was of an extremely disgusting or abominable character, if there was easily at hand a certain professional category, which on request customarily took care of the services in question. In the absence of an explicit agreement or a positive legislative rule, such work tasks which violated a person’s physical or moral integrity ought not to be included in the servant’s obligation to work for another person.At the same timeWinroth referred to a “general norm”, according to which the master did not have to consider if the servant was more sensitive than a healthy and grown human being, or if he or she, due to a previous education, regarded certain tasks as unpleasant.234 So far, our examination of Winroth’s opinion of the master and servant relation offers little support, if any, for the thesis that he represented a new way of thinking in Sweden. Starting with Nehrman in 1729, the previous examination of Swedish legal scholars has shown that Winroth was not a pioneer in taking a contractual point of departure.Moreover, it is worth noting that Winroth himself did not pretend to be original either, but clearly pointed out that previous Swedish legal scholars in general had discussed the master-servant relationship under the heading of the law of obligations. He even pointed out that this contractual point of departure was predominant in the rest of Europe with the exception of German jurists of the most recent decades.235 When considering Winroth’s opinions about the consequences of this voluntary contract, there is also reason to ask if he deviated at all from the mainstream. In line with a very well established opinion, he claimed that the open-ended duties of the servant,“must be considered as lying in the nature of the contract”.236 He p a r t 1 i i , c h a p t e r 4 110 234 Winroth 1878, pp. 5-7. 235 Winroth 1878, p.VI, fn 24. 236 “måste anses vara sådane, hvilka ligga i aftalets natur”.Winroth 1878, p. 7.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=