Drylie v Alloa Coal Company, Ltd
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 25 January 1913 |
| Date | 25 January 1913 |
| Docket Number | No. 75. |
| Court | Court of Session |
Lord Dundas, Lord Justice-Clerk, Lord Salvesen, Lord Mackenzie, Lord Guthrie, Lord President, Lord Kinnear.
Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906 (6 Edw. VII. cap. 58), sec. 1 (1)—‘Accident’—Pneumonia following upon chill—Chill due to partial immersion in water accumulating in a mine through breakdown of a pump.
During the working time in a coalpit, which was a wet pit, water began to accumulate owing to a defect in the pump; and the pump being stopped for repair, the water accumulated still further. When the miners found the water rising they decided to leave the pit, and hastened to the pit bottom, where they were kept waiting for twenty minutes, during which time they were severely chilled by the water which rose to their knees, and by exposure to the current of cold air descending the shaft. One of these miners on reaching the pit head lingered there for at least twenty minutes, and on arriving at his home complained of chill, and next day suffered from a cough, hoarseness, and pains, but went to his work. After several days—on three of which he worked at the pit—he was found to be suffering from pneumonia, of which he ultimately died.
In an application by his dependants for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, the arbitrator awarded compensation, holding that the pneumonia was due to the chill which the deceased had received, and that his death resulted from injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment.
In an appeal a Court of Seven Judges (diss. Lord Salvesen) held that the occurrence in the mine on the day in question was an ‘accident,’ and that there was evidence on which the arbitrator might competently find that the deceased's pneumonia was due to that occurrence; and affirmed the arbitrator's decision.
Mrs Margaret Walls or Drylie, widow of John Drylie, a brushing contractor in the employment of the Alloa Coal Company, Limited (on behalf of herself and her pupil children), and her son John Drylie junior, presented an application in the Sheriff Court at Alloa for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906, in respect of John Drylie's death. The Sheriff-substitute (Leslie), after hearing the case with the assistance of a medical assessor, awarded compensation, and at the request of the employers stated a case for appeal.
The case set forth that on 25th September 1911 while Drylie, who was a healthy man, ‘was at work along with two other men in the defenders' Brucefield Pit, owing to a defect in the pump, water began to accumulate at the pit bottom; that the pump was stopped in order that this defect might be remedied; that the stoppage allowed the water still further to accumulate; that when the men found the water rising they became somewhat alarmed, and decided to leave their work and the pit; that they arrived at the pit bottom heated from the exertion of their work and their haste on the way to the shaft; that the cage did not descend for them in reply to their signals until they had stood for about twenty minutes at the pit bottom while the repair to the pump was being completed; that, while they were standing there, the water rose two inches, until they were immersed up to the knees in icy-cold water; that there was a draught of cold air falling down the shaft upon them; that they were severely chilled by this exposure; that on reaching the pit head the deceased John Drylie remained hanging about for twenty minutes or half an hour; that he complained of chill on arrival at his house; that on the following day, Tuesday, 26th September, he suffered from cough, hoarseness, and pains, but went to his work; that he left his work early; that the next day, Wednesday, was an idle day, and he only left his house to arrange about his pay lines; that occasionally while quite well he did not remain a full shift in the pit; that on Thursday and Friday he was again at work, but not for the full shifts; that his cough continued during these days; that on Friday, 29th September, he was shivering, and complained of cold all over; that on Saturday, 30th September, he was seen by a doctor, who suspected pneumonia; that on Sunday, 1st October, the doctor was assured that he was suffering from pneumonia; that on 8th October John Drylie died of pneumonia; that the Brucefield Pit is a wet pit; that the workmen there generally get wet at their work; that John Drylie was exposed to wetting at his work on the days following 25th September; that it was unusual for water to accumulate in the pit to the depth of two feet; that it was unusual to repair the pump when men were at work in the pit; that the pneumonia from which deceased died was due to the chill which he received on 25th September; that his remaining at the pit head in his wet condition, and his working on the days following, and his wetting on these days, had not a favourable effect upon the illness caused by the chill on 25th September; that the pneumonia from which deceased died was a natural sequence of the chill to which he was exposed on 25th September.
‘On these facts I found (1) that the death of the deceased John Drylie resulted from injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment with the appellants; (2) that the respondents were entitled to compensation from the appellants in terms of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906, to the amount of £265, 3s. 8d.’
The question of law was:—‘Did the death of the deceased John Drylie result from injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment with the appellants?’
The case, after a hearing before the Second Division on 7th, 8th, and 12th June 1912 was sent, in respect of the importance of the question submitted, to a Court of Seven Judges; and it was again heard before the Second Division, with the Lord President, Lord Kinnear, and Lord Mackenzie, on 19th and 20th December 1912.
Argued for the appellants;—(1) There was no ‘injury by accident’ in this case. The word ‘accident’ must be construed in the popular sense1; and accordingly the applicant must prove some incident happening at a particular place and date which caused the injury.2 There was nothing of that kind here, for all that occurred was that the deceased contracted a chill, and no one would call that an accident. The cases of Sheerin v. Clayton & CompanyIR,3 and Yates v. South Kirkby, &c., Collieries, LimitedELRELRELRELR,1
were not consistent with the decisions of the House of Lords, and were wrongly decided.2 (2) The injury did not arise out of the deceased's employment. To get wet and chilled was not a risk peculiar to or usually connected with the employment,3 and in this respect the present case was distinguished from such cases as poisoning by sewer gas4 or by carbon-monoxide gas.5 Further, there was no evidence to connect the deceased's death with what happened in the mine. None of the other miners who were exposed to the same conditions as Drylie suffered from pneumonia; and it was quite as probable that Drylie's death was due to his having lingered at the pit head as to his having waited at the bottom of the pit. His conduct made it impossible to hold that there was the necessary causal connection between the alleged accident and his death6; and, that being so, the Court ought to reverse the arbitrator's decision.7
Argued for the respondents;—(1) The stoppage of the pump owing to its defective state was an accident; or, at all events, the stoppage of the pump and the consequent accumulation of water where the miners were compelled to wait was an accident. To satisfy the definition of the words ‘injury by accident’ it was not necessary to prove any direct physical injury or lesion; thus a ‘physiological injury’8 or nervous shock9 was an accident.10 (2) Drylie's death was due to the accident in the mine. The accident did not require to be the immediate,11 or the sole,12 cause of the workman's injury or death; it was enough if the injury or death could be traced to the accident.13 Here the necessary connection was established. But
supposing the Court were of opinion that it was not, the question being one of fact, the arbitrator's decision could not be disturbed unless there was absolutely no evidence to warrant his finding1; and as that could not be maintained here, the decision on this point must stand.
At advising on 25th January 1913,—
Lord Dundas.—This case seems to me to lie very near the line which separates liability and non-liability for compensation by an employer. The Sheriff-substitute has decided that it lies on the side inferring liability; and I do not see any sufficient ground for disturbing his decision.
The difficulty of the case is to a large extent caused by the unsatisfactory way in which some of the findings are expressed; but the gist of the facts found may, I think, be summarised as follows—I quote the actual words where it seems advisable to do so. On 25th September 1911 the workman, John Drylie, a healthy man of forty-five, was engaged at his work in the appellants' Brucefield pit—a ‘wet pit,’ where the employees usually get wet at their work. Owing to a defect in the pump, water began to accumulate at the pit bottom; the pump was stopped, in order to repair it; and the ‘stoppage allowed the water still further to accumulate.’ The men, becoming alarmed at the rising water, decided to leave work and the pit; they reached the pit bottom heated by the exertion of their work and their haste; and the cage did not descend for them, in reply to their signals, until they had stood for about twenty minutes, while the repair to the pump was being completed. The water, icy-cold, rose up to their knees, and a draught of cold air was falling from the shaft upon them. ‘They were severely chilled by this exposure.’ On reaching the pit head Drylie remained hanging about for twenty or thirty minutes; he ‘complained of chill’ on arriving at his house; and, on the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mittun v Salvesen & Company
...M.R., at p. 681; Martin v. Manchester CorporationUNK,(1912) 5 B. W. C. C. 259, Buckley, L.J., at p. 262; Drylie v. Alloa Coal Co., 1913 S. C. 549, Lord Dundas at p. 554;Grant v. KynochELR, 1919 S. C. (H. L.) 62, Lord Wrenbury at p. 83, [1919] A. C. 765, at p. 798. 7 [1905] A. C. 230. 8 Brod......
-
Brown v John Watson Ltd
...that the deceased's death was due to an injury by accident; and award of the arbitrator affirmed Drylie v. Alloa Coal Company, Limited, 1913 S. C. 549, (In the Court of Session, 30th January 19131913 S. C. 593.) The pursuer appealed to the House of Lords. The case was heard on 30th and 31st......
- Ogle Company Ltd v Mangri Rajnarine
-
Walker v Bairds & Dalmellington
...caught as the result of the nature of the work. I was also, of course, referred to the well-known cases of Drylie v. Alloa Coal Co., 1913 S. C. 549, and Brown v. John Watson, LimitedELR,1914 S. C. (H. L.) 44, [1915] A. C. 1, but I have found nothing in the present case which would put it on......