Fraser v Riddell & Company
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 29 November 1913 |
| Docket Number | No. 16. |
| Date | 29 November 1913 |
| Court | Court of Session |
Lord President, Lord Skerrington, Lord Hunter.
Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906 (6 Edw. VII. cap. 58), sec. 1 (1)—Accident arising out of and in the course of the employment—Driver of traction-engine falling from engine while drunk.
The driver of a traction-engine, while driving the engine, fell from the footplate and was run over and killed. In an application for compensation at the instance of his widow the arbitrator found that the accident did not arise out of his employment, in respect that the man was under the influence of drink and unfit for his work at the time of the accident.
Held that the accident arose out of and in the course of the employment.
In an arbitration under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906, in the Sheriff Court of Lanarkshire at Glasgow, between the widow of the late James Fraser (for herself and as tutor and curator for her children) and John Riddell & Company, the interim Sheriff-substitute (Macdonald) refused to award compensation, and, at the request of the applicants, stated a case for appeal.
The case set forth:—
‘(1) On 26th March 1913 the deceased James Fraser was a traction-engine driver in the employment of the respondents, John Riddell & Company. (2) About 11.30 p.m. on said date, while driving a traction-engine belonging to the respondents in Bilsland Drive, Mary-hill, Glasgow, he fell off the footplate on to the roadway. (3) One of the wheels of a wagon attached to the engine passed over him. (4) As the result of the injuries he received he died on the following day. (5) When he commenced his duties on the said date, and when he was last seen prior to the said accident by any person in authority over him in his employment, he was sober. (6) At the time of the said accident he was under the influence of drink, and was unfit for his work. (7) The appellants were dependent upon him at the time of his death.
‘Apart from his intoxicated condition, there was nothing proved which could account for the deceased's fall off the engine, and I drew the inference that it was due to his intoxicated condition. I held that while the said accident arose in the course of, it did not arise out of, the deceased's employment, and I found that the respondents were not liable to pay compensation to the appellants.’
The question of law for the opinion of the Court was:—‘Whether, upon the evidence, I could competently find that the said accident did not arise out of the employment of the deceased within the meaning of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906?’
The case was heard before the First Division (consisting of the Lord President, Lord Skerrington, and Lord Hunter) on 29th November 1913.
Argued for the appellant;—There was no finding by the Sheriff-substitute that the deceased, at the time he met with the accident, was exposed to a risk different from those ordinarily incident to his employment. He was therefore wrong in holding that the accident had not arisen out of the employment. The second finding was an explicit finding to the effect that he was engaged in his usual employment, and in these circumstances the utmost effect that could be given to the sixth finding was that the man's condition aggravated the risk to which he was normally exposed.1 Where death...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Robertson v Woodilee Coal and Coke Company
...[1909] A. C. 31; Kerr v. William Baird & Co., 1911 S. C. 701; Herbert v. Samuel Fox & Co., [1916] 1 A. C. 405. 2 Fraser v. Riddell & Co., 1914 S. C. 125; Williams v. Llandudno Coaching and Carriage Co.ELR, [1915] 2 K. B. 101; Manson v. Forth and Clyde Steamship Co., 1913 S. C. 921; M'Kendry......
-
Scrimgeour v Thomson & Company
...[1912] 2 K. B. 155, at p. 159; Nash v. Owners of s.s. Rangatira,ELR [1914] 3 K. B. 978, at pp. 980, 982, 984; Fraser v. Riddell & Co., 1914 S. C. 125; Murphy & Sandwith v. [1914] 2 I. R. 76, 7 B. W. C. C. 962; Williams v. Llandudno Coaching and Carriage Co.ELR, [1915] 2 K. B. 101; Leyland S......
-
Brown v Baton Colliery Company
...R. 172, per Sir James Campbell, C., at p. 175; M'William v. Great North of Scotland Railway Co., 1914 S. C. 453; Fraser v. Riddell & Co., 1914 S. C. 125; Beattie v. Tough & Sons, 1917 S. C. 199; Bullworthy v. GlanfieldUNK, (1914) 7 B. W. C. C. 191; Foulkes v. RobertsUNK, (1919) 12 B. W. C. ......
-
Scrimgeour v Thomson & Company
...a contributing cause. The case where a workman's intoxication is the sole cause of an accident distinguished. Fraser v. Riddell & Co., 1914 S. C. 125, and Williams v. Llandudno Coaching and Carriage Co.ELR [1915) 2 K. B. 101, followed. Nash v. Owners of s.s. ‘Rangatira,’ELR [1914] 3 K. B. 9......