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 not like, for example, lead-poisoning due to the nature of the work engaged in, and the natural consequence of engaging in that work.
Argued for the respondents;—The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Golden Hope Rubber Estate Ltd v Muniammah and Others
- Fenton v Thorley & Company Ltd
-
Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Scullion
...terms”: see page 448. 32 Lord Macnaughten referred to and relied on a Scottish decision of Stewart v Wilsons and Clyde Coal Co Ltd (1902) 5.F 120, in which Lord M'Laren had observed, at page 122, (in relation to the same statute) that “if a workman in the reasonable performance of his dutie......
-
Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Scullion [2010] EWCA Civ 310 CI 2842 2006
...terms”: see page 448. Lord Macnaghten referred to and relied on a Scottish decision of Stewart v Wilsons and Clyde Coal Co Ltd (1902) 5 F 120, in which Lord M’Laren had observed, at page 122, (in relation to the same statute) that “if a workman in the reasonable performance of his duties su......