Stewart v Wilsons and Clyde Coal Company Ltd
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 14 November 1902 |
| Date | 14 November 1902 |
| Docket Number | No. 22. |
| Court | Court of Session (Inner House - First Division) |
Lord President, Lord Adam, Lord M'Laren, Lord Kinnear.
Master and Servant—Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897 (60 and 61 Vict. c. 37), sec. 1 (1)—Injury by accident—Accident—Strain.—
A workman while engaged in the course of his employment in replacing a derailed coal hutch on the rails severely strained his back. Held that the injury suffered by the workman was an injury by accident entitling him to compensation, in terms of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897.
In an application under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897,* by Walter Stewart, miner, against the Wilsons and Clyde Coal Company, Limited, the Sheriff-substitute of Lanarkshire at Hamilton (Davidson) found that the claimant was not entitled to compensation.
The claimant obtained a case, in which the following statements were made:—
‘This claim was made by the appellant in respect, as is alleged, that on the 17th April last the appellant, while in the course of his employment with the respondents in the Pyotshaw seam, in No. 2 pit, he had occasion to go out to the main heading (a distance of 15 fathoms) for hutches, and on reaching there he found that the driver on the road had carelessly thrown one of the hutches off the rails, and before he could get said hutch into his working-place to fill it he had to replace it on the rails, and while doing so he severely strained his back.
‘The case was before me on the 9th day of June last, when the following facts were admitted or proved:—That the appellant was injured as above stated; he was replacing a derailed empty hutch on the rails, which, although not a part of his regular and ordinary work, was an operation which he might at any time be expected to perform; that the claimant, who had been off work and drinking during two or three days immediately prior to 13th April last, worked harder than usual to hasten his recovery from the effects of the drink; that while
replacing said empty hutch on the rails he strained the muscles of his back, and was unable to work. His average earnings were 16s. 11d. per week.’
The question of law for the opinion of the Court of Session was:—‘Is the injury to the appellant, as above described, an accident entitling him to compensation in terms of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897?’
Argued for the appellant;—The injury here was by accident. There was something fortuitous and unexpected in what had taken place.1 The injury was...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
- Golden Hope Rubber Estate Ltd v Muniammah and Others
- Fenton v Thorley & Company Ltd
-
Ismay, Imrie & Company v Williamson
... ... The case is not like Fenton v. ThorleyF1 or Stewart v. Wilson's and Clyde Coal Co.F2, where a strain from over-exertion was ... ...
-
Durham v Thorpe Campbell Holdings Ltd and another
...applied was that of sustaining a physiological injury as a result of the work engaged in (Lord M'Laren's test from Stewart v. Wilsons and Clyde Coal Co Ltd (1902) 5 F 120, cited by Viscount Caldecote LC at 483). As such, the test in practice collapsed the meaning of accident into that of in......