Scottish Court of Session Decisions

The Workmen's Compensation Act 1897, sec. 7 (2), enacts, inter alia—“Dependants' means …( b) in Scotland such of the persons entitled according to the law of Scotland to sue the employer for damages or solatium in respect of the death of the workman as were wholly or in part dependent upon the earnings of the workman at the time of his death.”

This was an appeal upon a stated case in the Sheriff Court at Airdrie in an arbitration under the Workmen's Compensation Act 1897 between Margaret Russell or Sneddon, Orchard Street, Hamilton, widow of John Sneddon, miner, Rosehall, Lanarkshire,

Page: 827↓

pursuer and respondent, and Robert Addie & Sons' Collieries, Limited, coal-masters, Rosehall, defenders and appellants, in which the pursuer claimed compensation from the defenders in respect of the death of her husband while in their employment.

The Sheriff-Substitute ( Mackenzie) stated—“The case was heard before me, when the following facts were proved:—1. That on 26th January 1904, John Sneddon, while in the employment of the respondents as a miner, sustained injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, and that said injury caused his death. 2. That the applicant is the widow of the said John Sneddon, and that he left no children. 3. That about the beginning of July 1901 the said John Sneddon deserted the applicant, and that he never thereafter contributed anything to her support with the exception of £1, which he placed in the hands of the parochial authority before his departure, and which she received subsequently. 4. That the applicant went to live with her mother at Hamilton towards the. end of July 1901, and resided with her from that time until October 1903, with the exception of a fortnight in August 1901, which she spent in the Dunoon Convalescent Home. 5. That during the whole of this period, with the exception of the fortnight spent in the Dunoon Home, the applicant was entirely supported by her mother. 6. That in October 1903 the applicant went to Cambuslang to act as housekeeper to Alexander Simpson, a friend of her family, the bargain between them being that she should receive board and lodging in return for her work, but no wages in money. 7. That she remained in Simpson's house until 3rd February 1904, when she returned to her mother. 8. That the applicant suffers from chronic bronchitis and varicose veins in the legs to an extent which incapacitates her from any work requiring ordinary exertion. 9. That for about a year prior to August she suffered from suppurating sores in her legs due to the varicose veins, and was attended regularly by a nurse. 10. That after a few weeks in the service of Alexander Simpson she became ill with bronchitis and pains in her legs, and that as a result of these ailments she was unfit for the proper discharge of her duties during the remainder of the time she stayed in this house. 11. That during this period she on several occasions received pecuniary assistance to a small amount from her mother. 12. That it is admitted that in the event of the applicant being found entitled to compensation in respect of her husband's death on the footing of total dependency, she is not entitled to more than £150, toward which she has already received £5 without prejudice. On these facts I found in law that the applicant was, in the sense of sub-section 2 of section 7 of the Workmen's Compensation Act 1897, wholly dependent upon the earnings of her husband at the time of his death, and is entitled to compensation in respect of his death upon that footing. I therefore awarded the applicant the sum of one hundred and forty-five pounds sterling, and found her entitled to expenses.”

The question of law for the opinion of the Court was—“Was the applicant wholly dependent upon the earnings of her husband at the time of his death within the meaning of the Workmen's Compensation Act 1897 so as to entitle her to compensation from the appellants?”

Argued for the defenders and appellants—The claimant was not at the time of her husband's death dependent on his earnings in the sense of the Act. Mere relationship was not enough. Whether there was dependency was entirely a question of fact in each case. There was here no dependency in point of fact on the earnings of the deceased. At the time of his death the claimant occupied the position of a wife independent of her husband's support, and the death of her husband did not alter that position in any way— Turners Limited v. Whitefield, June 17, 1904, 41 S.L.R. 631; Main Colliery Co. v. Davies [1900], A.C. 358; Rees v. Penrikyber Navigation Colliery Co., Limited, 1902, 19 T.L.R. 113.

Argued for the pursuer and respondent—“Dependence” did not mean actual support at the time of the husband's death. A wife must either be dependent on or independent of her husband's support. In the present case the wife was destitute and incapable of earning anything. She was therefore dependent on her husband according to the law of Scotland. The case was ruled by Cunningham v. James M'Gregor & Co., May 14, 1901, 3 F. 775, 38 S.L.R. 574.

At advising—