Strong v Wright & Company
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 01 June 1922 |
| Docket Number | No. 68. |
| Date | 01 June 1922 |
| Court | Court of Session |
Lord President (Clyde), Lord Mackenzie, Lord Skerrington, Lord Cullen.
Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906 (6 Edw. VII. cap. 58), see. 1 (1)Out of and in the course of the employmentWorkman getting off moving lorry to recover his coatAdded risk.
A workman, who was employed to accompany the driver of a motor lorry and help in delivering goods, was sitting beside the driver when his coat, which he had taken off for the purposes of his work, blew on to the road. While the driver was stopping the lorry to enable him to recover his coat, and while the lorry was still moving at four or five miles an hour, the workman stepped down with his face turned towards the rear. He fell, and was seriously and permanently injured. He was not prohibited by law or by the terms of his employment from leaving a lorry in motion.
Held that the accident arose out of and in the course of the employment, in respect that it was reasonably incidental to the employment that the workman should recover his coat, and that his attempt to leave the slowly moving lorry, though carelessly executed, was not such an added risk as to take him out of the scope of his employment.
In an arbitration under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906, in the Sheriff Court at Perth, in which Charles Strong, brewery-worker, claimed compensation from John Wright & Company, brewers, Perth, in respect of injuries sustained while in their employment, the Sheriff-substitute (Boswell) refused compensation, and at the request of the workman stated a case for appeal.
The case set forth:
I found the following facts proved:
(1) The defenders and respondents use in connexion with their business the motor lorry shown in the photographs Nos. 8, 12, and 13 of process. On 15th August 1921, the day of the accident, it was driven by the witness David Watson, a properly qualified and satisfactory motor-driver, who had driven it for eighteen months. No act of hostility or unkindness on his part to the pursuer was proved. The lorry was a 3-ton Albion, with a top speed of 12 miles per hour. It could be stopped in twice its length of 20 feet 7 inches if loaded, and in about its length if empty. The distance from the top step to the second step on the left hand side is 1 foot 4 inches, and from the second step to the ground 1 foot 7 inches. The distance from the doorway to the back wheel is 8 feet 11 inches. Anyone getting off the lower step is directly in line with the near hind wheel. (2) The pursuer was employed by the defenders as an extra hand at a fixed wage of 2, 15s. per week, and on the said day his duties were to accompany Watson on the lorry to assist him in the loading and unloading of cases of beer, &c. In performing these duties it was not necessary for the pursuer to step down from a moving lorry, and it was not his custom to get off in that way, but no rule, instruction, or agreement against it was proved. (3) On the said day the lorry had been delivering beer at Ladybank and was returning to and nearing Perth with empty cases. Watson and the pursuer were both in it, and in the course of their employment, Watson driving and the pursuer sitting beside him on his left, and waiting to assist at the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rooney v London and North Eastern Railway Company
...S. C. (H. L.) 85, Lord Shaw at p. 90, [1929] A. C. 570, at p. 578; Bird v. PriceUNK,(1920) 13 W. C. C. 143. 1 Strong v. Wright & Co., 1922 S. c. 515, Lord President Clyde at pp.517, 518; M'Lauchlan v. Anderson, 1911 S. C.529, Lord President Dunedin at p.532. 2 1930 S. C. 1038. 3 Upton v. Gr......
-
M'Intosh v Carmichael
...[1917] A. C. 352. 4 Ibid., Lord Finlay, L.C., at p. 359, Lord Dunedin at pp. 363, 364, Lord Atkinson at p. 370. 5 Strong v. Wright & Co., 1922 S. C. 515. 6 (1914) 7 B. W. C. C. 7 Thomson v. Flemington Coal Co., 1911 S. C. 823; M'Laren v. Caledonian Railway Co., 1911 S. C. 1075, Lord Preside......
-
Durie v Anchor-Donaldson Line
...held to be a negligent act on his part, would not, in my opinion, in the circumstances of the present case, exclude his claim—Strong, 1922 S. C. 515. In short, neither the purpose of the appellant's mission ashore nor his method of executing it appears to me conclusive against him; his brea......
- Tulloch (or Boyle) v North of Scotland and Orkney and Shetland Steam Navigation Company