Scottish Court of Session Decisions

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Kent v. Porter [1901] ScotLR 38_482 (20 March 1901)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1901/38SLR0482.html
Cite as: [1901] SLR 38_482, [1901] ScotLR 38_482

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]

SCOTTISH_SLR_Court_of_Session

Page: 482↓

Court of Session Inner House Second Division.

[Sheriff-Substitute at Glasgow.

Wednesday, March 20. 1901.

38 SLR 482

Kent

v.

Porter.

Subject_1Reparation
Subject_2Workmen's Compensation Act 1897 (60 and 61 Vict. cap. 37), sec. 7, sub-sec. (1)
Subject_3Employment “on or in or about a Factory”
Subject_4Carterinjured through Horse bolting 800 yards from Factory.
Facts:

A carter, in the employment of a grain merchant whose premises were a factory within the meaning of the Workmen's Compensation Act 1897, was driving a horse and cart belonging to his employer, when at a distance of 800 yards from the employer's premises the horse bolted, with the result that the carter was injured.

Held that the accident did not occur in the course of employment “about” a factory within the meaning of the Workmen's Compensation Act 1897, and that the employer was not liable in compensation.

Headnote:

This was an appeal in an arbitration under the Workmen's Compensation Act 1897 before the Sheriff-Substitute (BOYD) at Glasgow, between John Kent, grain merchant, Glasgow, appellant, and David Porter, carter, Park head, claimant and respondent.

The facts stated by the Sheriff-Substitute were as follows:—“That the respondent, who is twenty years old, was a carter with the appellant, a grain merchant in Glasgow. That the appellant's premises were a factory in terms of the Workmen's Compensation Act 1897:… That on Monday morning, 13th February, the appellant's brother and foreman harnessed a horse which the appellant had got on trial, and ordered Forsyth, a carter with the appellant, to help the respondent to yoke the horse to a lorry to fetch a load of coal, and thus to try the horse. The horse was fresh and restive, but showed no signs of vice. By the orders of the foreman Forsyth accompanied the respondent for some part of the way, and for about 800 yards the horse went quietly, but when passing under a railway bridge in Great Eastern Road, Parkhead, Glasgow, over which a train was passing, the horse reared and bolted, shaking off Forsyth. The respondent remained on the lorry, and as he was constantly threatened with a collision he with much effort guided the galloping horse into Croft Street on his right, but as the force of the turn was violent, and the ground slippery with frost, the lorry skidded towards the left, jamming the respondent between the lorry and the adjacent houses: That the respondent was so injured by this accident that it was found necessary to amputate his right leg above the knee.”

In these circumstances, the Sheriff—Substitute awarded the respondent compensation.

The question of law for the opinion of the Court was, “Whether the appellant was rightly held liable to make compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act 1897?”

The Workmen's Compensation Act 1897, sec. 7, sub-sec. (1), enacts—“This Act shall apply only to employment by the undertakers … on or in or about ( inter alia) a factory.”

Judgment:

Lord Justice-Clerk—In this case I think the Sheriff-Substitute is wrong. The respondent is a lorryman in the employment of the appellant, who is a grain merchant in Glasgow, and whose premises the Sheriff-Substitute has found to be a factory in terms of the Workmen's Compensation Act 1897. When the respondent with his lorry was about 800 yards from the premises the horse bolted, with the result that the respondent was so injured as to make it necessary to amputate his right leg. The question is, whether the accident took place on in or about the factory. I am very clearly of opinion that it did not.

Lord Trayner—I think this case is very badly stated. It would have been better if the Sheriff-Substitute had given some reason for his finding in fact that the premises in question are a factory within the meaning of the Act; for it does not occur to me how the premises of a grain merchant in Glasgow can be a factory. But I take the fact as the Sheriff-Substitute has stated it. Nor is the question which has been argued to us specifically stated in the case. But if the question which we have to determine is whether an accident which took place on the public street 800 yards from the factory took place on or in or about the factory, I have no hesitation in answering that question in the negative.

Lord Moncreiff concurred.

Lord Young was absent.

The Court answered the question of law in the negative and remitted to the Sheriff—Substitute to dismiss the application.

Counsel:

Counsel for the Appellant— Salvesen, K.C.—Glegg. Agents— Macpherson & Mackay, S.S.C.

Counsel for the Claimant and Respondent— A. S. D. Thomson. Agent— John Veitch, Solicitor.
1901