 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
United Kingdom House of Lords Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom House of Lords Decisions >> Blair & Co., Ltd v. Chilton [1915] UKHL 503 (11 May 1915) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1915/53SLR0503.html Cite as: [1915] UKHL 503, 53 ScotLR 503 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Page: 503↓
(On Appeal from the Court of Appeal in England.)
(Before
Subject_Master and Servant — Workmen's Compensation Act 1906 (6 Edw. VII, cap. 58), sec. 1 (1) — “Accident Arising Out of and in the Course of the Employment” — Disobedience to Orders.
Contrary to orders, a boy employed on a machine sat on the guard of the machine, and in consequence caught his foot in the machinery. Had he been standing the accident could not have happened.
Held that he was entitled to compensation.
Appeal by the employers from a judgment of the Court of Appeal ( Lord Cozens— Hardy, M.R., Swinfen Eady and Pick Ford, L.JJ.), reported 7 B.W.C.C. 607, 30 T.L.R. 623, which reversed a decision of His Honour Judge Templar of the County Court, Stockton-on-Tees.
The learned Judge held on the facts that the case came within the decision of this House in Plumb v. Cobden Flour Mills Company, 51 S.L.R. 861, [1914] AC 62, and gave judgment for the employers.
The facts were as follows:—The appellants were engineers, boilermakers, and ironfounders carrying on business in Stockton-on-Tees, and the respondent Robert Chilton was a lad employed by them as an apprentice riveter at a wage of 7s. a-week. On the 14th August 1913, in the course of his employment, Chilton was engaged on a rolling machine making ventilator tiers. At each end of the machine there was a guard or platform and a wheel for adjusting the rollers. The guard or platform was 2 feet 9 inches from the ground. The respondent's duty was to turn the wheel at one end of the rollers as he stood by the guard. In so doing there was no risk of injury to his feet. He was forbidden to sit during working hours in any part of the shop.
On the day of the accident he sat upon the platform or guard, and while so seated continued to turn the wheel. He sat down solely for his own convenience, and while seated a boy touched him on the back, and he turned half—round and stretched in so doing his left leg out, and his left foot was caught between the rollers and so crushed that it became permanently disabled.
After hearing counsel for the appellants—
Page: 504↓
In the present case the boy Chilton was at his work near dangerous machinery, sitting instead of standing as it was his duty to have done, and being suddenly touched by a comrade on the shoulder he turned and his foot was injured by the machinery. His sitting instead of standing was a cause of the injury—that is to say, the injury would not have happened if he had not been sitting. In my opinion Pickford, L.J., sums up the whole of the facts in saying this—“This I think is doing his work in a wrong way, and not doing something outside his sphere.”
The decision of the County Court Judge was against the applicant, and it is binding, upon us if there were materials which admitted of the conclusion at which he arrived, but in my opinion the facts here admit only of one conclusion, namely, that the injury by accident arose out of the employment, and that was the only real point that could be raised.
I am bound to say that I think it is an extremely clear case. This is the very kind of thing for which the Act was passed, and I hope I am not wrong in adding my surprise that this case was ever defended at all.
Appeal dismissed.
Counsel for the Appellants— Bairstow, K.C.— Richardson. Agents— Tarry, Sherlock, & King, for Reuben Cohen, Stocktonon-Tees, Solicitors.
Counsel for the Respondents— Mortimer. Agents—G. & W. Webb, for C. T. Townsend, Stockton-on-Tees, Solicitors.