Rooney v London and North Eastern Railway Company

JurisdictionScotland
Judgment Date28 October 1930
Docket NumberNo. 6.
Date28 October 1930
CourtCourt of Session (Inner House - Second Division)

2D DIVISION.

No. 6.
Rooney
and
London and North Eastern Railway Co

Workmen's CompensationAct 1925 (15 and 16 Geo. v. cap. 84), sec.1(1)"Out of and in the course of the employment"Added perilRailway servant sent to deliver letter at signal cabin 300 yards from stationServant borrowing fellow-servant's bicycle and killed while bicycling along railway platform.

A workman, employed at railway station on shunting and other duties, was instructed to deliver a letter at a signal cabin 300 yards distant from the station. The usual and only recognised method of doing so was for the messenger to go on foot along the platform and across several sets of rails. The workman, however, borrowed a fellow-servant's bicycle which had been left in the station offices. He proceeded to ride along the platform, but failed to keep a straight course and fell from the platform to the rails, sustaining injuries from which he died.

Held(dub.Lord Anderson)that, while the accident had happened in the course of the deceased's employment, he had taken a risk, in using the bicycle, which was not reasonably incidental to his employment, but was an added peril to which by his own conduct he had exposed himself; and, accordingly, that the accident did not arise out of the employment.

In an application under the Workmen's Compensation Act,1925, in the Sheriff Court at Edinburgh, at the instance of John Rooney and others, the father, mother, and two sisters of John Patrick Rooney, against the London and North Eastern Railway Company, for compensation in respect of the death of the said John Patrick Rooney, a shunter who had been employed by the defenders at Leith Central station, the Sheriff-substitute (Orr)refused compensation, and, at the request of the pursuers, stated a case for appeal.

The case stated that the following facts were admitted or proved:"(1)That on 11th May 1928 the deceased John Patrick Rooney, aged twenty-six, was in the employment of the respondents at Leith Central Station as a shunter, and to assist generally when not engaged in the duties of shunting. (2) That about 5P.M.on said day Rooney was in the parcels office and was instructed by the parcels clerk to deliver a letter at the signal-box. (3)That the distance between said parcels office and signal-box is between 200 and 300 yards. (4) That to reach said signal-box it was necessary for Rooney to traverse the length of a platform and then to cores certain lines of rails, in all about 300 yards, and that to do this would occupy about five minutes by walking. (5) That it was a common thing to have messages or letters taken from said parcels office to the signal-box. (6) That the usual and only recognised method of doing so was for the messenger to go on foot. (7) That on receiving said instruction Rooney took possession of a bicycle which was stored in the back part of said parcels office. (8) That said bicycle belonged to another employee of respondents at said station who used it for carrying him between his home and his work. (9) That Rooney did not ask or receive permission from any officer of the respondents or from the owner of said bicycle to use it on said occasion, and that said owner had no prior knowledge that Rooney had so taken possession of it. (10) That Rooney cycled on to No. 4 platform at a rapid speed, narrowly missing the gatepost of said platform, but failed to keep a straight course there and fell with the bicycle over the left-hand side of said platform on to rails beneath at a distance of about 7 yards from the entrance from which he died."

The case further stated:"On these facts I found in law that said accident arose in the course of the deceased's employment but did not arise out of said employment, and , accordingly, on 28th January 1930 I issued my award by which I assoilzied the respondents from the conclusions of the application and found the appellants liable jointly and severally to the respondents in expenses."

The question of law was:"Whether there we evidence upon which it could competently be found that the death of the work-man was not due to an accident arising out of his employment with the respondents within the meaning of the Workmen's Compensation Act,1925?"

The case was heard before the Second Division on 15th October 1930.

At advising on 28th October 1930

LORD JUSTICE-CLERK (Alness).The appellants, who are respectively the father and mother and sisters of the deceased John Patrick Rooney, claimed from the respondents, who were his employers, compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act in respect of his death. Rooney was a shunter at Leith Central Station, and he had a duty also to assist

generally in the respondents' service. On 11th May 1928 he was sent from the parcels office in the station to a signal-box, between 200 and 300 yards distant, to deliver a letter. In order to get to the box he had to traverse the length of the platform, and then to cross certain rails. It was a common thing to have letters taken from the parcels office to the signal-box, and the usual and only recognised method of doing so was for the messenger to go on foot. On the occasion in question, however, Rooney obtained a bicycle, cycled along to the platform at a rapid speednarrowly missing a gatepost of the platformfailed to keep a straight course there, and fell with the bicycle over the left-hand side of the platform on to the railway beneath. He thus sustained injuries from which he died. The learned arbitrator in these circumstances refused to make an award of compensation to the appellants, whereupon this stated case was taken by them; and the question put to us is as follows:"Whether there was evidence upon which it could competently be found that the death of the workman was not due to an accident arising out of his employment with the respondents within the meaning of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1925?"

We have heard a very good argument, in the course of which...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT