Wilson v Laing
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 22 June 1909 |
| Date | 22 June 1909 |
| Docket Number | No. 181. |
| Court | Court of Session |
Lord Justice-Clerk, Lord Low, Lord Ardwall, Lord Dundas.
Master and Servant—Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906 (6 Edw. VII. cap. 58), sec. 1 (1)—Accident arising out of the employment.—
A domestic servant, while in the course of her duties, was struck on the eye and blinded by a ball thrown at her in play by a fellow-servant.
Held that the accident was not one arising out of the employment of the injured servant.
In an arbitration under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906, the between Helen Wilson and the Rev. George Laing, in the Sheriff Court at Edinburgh, the Sheriff-substitute (Guy) refused compensation, and stated a case.
The facts proved or admitted were stated as follows:—‘The appellant was on 4th July 1908 in the employment of the respondent as housemaid at 17 Buckingham Terrace, Edinburgh. Prior to her employment with the respondent, the appellant had suffered from defective eyes, and had had to undergo several surgical operations connected with them, the result of these operations being that the left eye had become practically blind, while the right eye, though weak, was a serviceable eye, and on said date enabled the appellant to perform her duties efficiently. On said date the appellant in the course of her duties was just leaving the drawing-room flat to ascend the stair to the nursery flat, preceded by her fellow-servant, Nurse Emelie Fairlie, when she was struck on her right eye by an india-rubber toy air-ball. Said ball had been playfully thrown by the said Emelie Fairlie over her left shoulder in the direction of the appellant, whom she knew to be following her upon the stair. She threw the ball with the intention of striking the appellant on the back. She threw it for fun, and did not think it would harm the
appellant. The said ball was not accidentally dropped or let fall. As the result of the blow from said ball, the appellant's right eye was so injured that she has almost completely lost her eyesight, and is wholly incapacitated for her work as a domestic servant.’
The Sheriff-substitute found in law that the accident to the appellant, though arising in the course of her employment, did not arise out of her employment with the respondent.
The question of law for the opinion of the Court was:—‘Whether the accident to the appellant arose out of her employment within the meaning of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906?’
The case was heard before the Second Division on 22d...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Clark v Lord Advocate
...Irish Steam Packet Co.ELR [1921] 2 K. B. 319. 9 Armitage v. Lancashire and Yorkshire RailwayELR, [1902] 2 K. B. 178; Wilson v. Laing, 1909 S. C. 1230; Wrigley v. Nasmyth, Wilson, & Co.UNK, (1913) 6 B. W. C. C. 90; Clayton v. Hardwick Colliery Co.UNK, (1915) 9 B. W. C. C. 1 [1910] A. C. 242,......
-
Macfarlane v Shaw (Glasgow)Ltd
...1913 S. C. 921; Rowland v. WrightELR, [1909] 1 K. B. 963; Challis v. London and South-Western Railway CoELR., [1905] 2 K. B. 154. 9 1909 S. C. 1230. 10 3 F. 564. 11 Elliot on the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906, (6th ed.) p. 62. 1 [1905] 2 K. B. 154 2 1913 S. C. 921. 3 [1910] 2 K. B. 689. ......
-
Murray v Denholm & Company
...Shipbuilding Co., LimitedSC, (1901) 3 F. 564, per Lord Trayner, at 567; Burley v. Baird & Co., Limited, 1908 S. C. 545; Wilson v. Laing, 1909 S. C. 1230; Armitage v. Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Co.ELR, [1902] 2 K. B. 178; Fitzgerald v. W. G. Clarke & SonELR, [1908] 2 K. B. 796. 4 Murph......