Gaunt v Babcock & Wilcox
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 26 October 1917 |
| Docket Number | No. 3. |
| Date | 26 October 1917 |
| Court | Court of Session |
Lord President, Lord Johnston, Lord Mackenzie, Lord Skerrington.
Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906 (6 Edw. VII. cap. 58), sec. 1 (1)Out of and in the course of the employmentDangerous method of doing workDisobedience to instructions.
A machine moulder, working on piece-work at a hydraulic press, required in the course of his duties to remove from time to time the loose sand which collected at the top of the moulding box below the moveable upper plate of the press. For this purpose he was supplied by his employers with a wooden scraper, and express instructions were issued that the sand from the top of the moulding boxes should be removed by means of these scrapers. In disregard of these instructions, and in order to increase his output and so to earn a higher wage, he was in the habit of removing the sand, whenever it accumulated, by inserting his hand between the moulding box and the upper plate. While doing so his hand was caught by the hydraulic press and crushed.
Held that the accident did not arise out of the employment.
In an arbitration under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906, in the Sheriff Court of Renfrew and Bute at Paisley, in which George Gaunt, moulder, claimed compensation from his employers, Babcock & Wilcox, Limited, the Sheriff-substitute (Blair) refused compensation, and at the request of the workman stated a case for appeal.
The case set forth the following facts as admitted or proved:(1) That George Gaunt, the appellant, aged thirty-eight, is a moulder, and for ten years prior to 29th November 1916 (with an interval of about twelve months, during which he worked elsewhere, and which interval ended when he returned nine months before the accident) he worked as a moulder in the employment of Babcock & Wilcox, Limited, the respondents. (2) That on 29th November 1916 he was working at a hydraulic moulding machine in respondents' employment along with Alan M'Swan, another employee. (3) That part of the process consists in pressing hydraulically the moulding box containing the moulding sand against a stationary plate. (4) That in connexion with this operation it is the duty of the machine moulder (in this case the appellant) to remove loose sand from the top of the moulding box. (5) That a wooden scraper is provided for the purpose of removing the sand, which it was the duty of the appellant to use, and which he failed to do. (6) That M'Swan's duties, on the other side of the moulding machine, and from which place he cannot see his mate, the appellant, are to work the hydraulic levers so as to open and close the hydraulic press in which the moulding box is placed, and that this operation frequently requires a double application of the hydraulic press to be given. (7) That on the occasion in question a first ramming had been given, which in M'Swan's judgment was unsatisfactory. (8) That, while the press had been lifted after the first ramming, Gaunt, the appellant, proceeded to clear away the loose sand from the top of the moulding box with his left hand, inserting his hand for that purpose between the moulding box and the top plate of the hydraulic press. (9) That M'Swan, without giving warning to the appellant, applied the levers a second time to give a second ramming, with the result that the appellant's left hand was caught in the hydraulic press and severely crushed and injured. (10) That the accident was caused by the appellant not using the scraper supplied and instructed to be used for that express purpose by the respondents. (11) That a scraper supplied to that machine was lying on a ledge within an arm's length of said machine, close to a tallow can and other articles used daily by the operators of that machine. (12) That its presence in that particular and accessible spot was known to both M'Swan and the appellant before...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nomihold Securities Inc. v Mobile Telesystems Finance SA [QBD (Comm)]
...Ltd v Guan Guan Shipping (Pte) Ltd (The Golden Bear)UNK [1987] 1 Ll Rep 330. Glasgow and South-Western Railway Co v Boyd & ForrestENR 1918 SC 14 (HL). Glencore International AG v Exter Shipping Ltd [2002] CLC 1090. HE Daniels Ltd v Carmel Exporters and Importers LtdELR [1953] 2 QB 242. Hend......
-
Nomihold Securities Inc. v Mobile Telesystems Finance SA
...in passing that here Nomihold's argument would appear to be supported by The Glasgow and South-Western Railway Co v Boyd & Forrest, [1918] SC 14 (HL).) iii) That, even if the claims in the New Arbitrations are not debarred by estoppel per rem judicatam, MTSF is precluded by issue estoppel ......
-
Murray v Fife Coal Company
...Co.UNK, (1923) 16 B. W. C. C. 55; Fairhurst v. Hollinwood Screw and Rivet Co.UNK, (1923) 16 B. W. C. C. 168. Gaunt v. Babcock & Wilcox, 1918 S. C. 14, was also referred 1 1921 S. C. (H. L.) 41, [1921] 1 A. C. 329. 2 1923 S. C. 830. 3 91 L. J., K. B. 470, 127 L. T. 73, 15 B. W. C. C. 291. 4 ......