United Kingdom House of Lords Decisions

Lord Chancellor (Loreburn)—In this case one Reed, an engine-driver in charge of his engine, got down from it while it was at rest and crossed a siding to receive from a friend a book unconnected with his duties. On returning he was knocked down by a waggon then being shunted and killed. The only question in dispute was whether or not the accident which killed him was one “arising out of and in the course of his employment.” I cannot think that it was. I agree that labour is often intermittent. If a man is in the place of his employment and during its hours uses such intervals otherwise than in working, and while doing so is injured by one of the dangers to which the employment exposes him, that may be an accident within the statute. He may be in such case required to be in attendance and in that respect engaged on his duty, though not actually doing work. But here this man was where he was not entitled to be, and was not working but pleasing himself. It is not that he thereby violated a rule, but that the accident did not arise out of or take place in the course of the employment at all. It took place while for the moment he quitted his employment. No doubt allowance must be made for the habits of business, and the Act must be applied reasonably; but in this case I can see no ground for allowing compensation.

Lord Ashbourne concurred.

Lord Macnaghten—I am of the same opinion. I think that the judgment of the Court of Appeal was right, for the reasons given by the Master of the Rolls. I agree with the Master of the Rolls in thinking that in all these cases it is incumbent upon the claimant to make out that the accident in respect of which compensation is claimed arose out of and in the course of the injured man's employment, not upon the employer to prove the contrary. But here the evidence shows that it was for a purpose of his own, and not in the execution of his duty or in the interest of his employers, that the injured man exposed himself to the risk which caused his death. He had been warned against doing the very thing which he ventured to do. He was, of course, wrong in disregarding the injunctions of his employers. But it is not on the ground of misconduct that his dependants are now without remedy. At the time when the accident happened the man was about his own business, not about the business of his employers. For the moment he had put himself outside the area of protection which the Legislature has carefully marked out. The case, in my opinion, is not within the scope of the enactment at all. I think that the appeal must be dismissed with costs.

Lord Chancellor—Lord James of Hereford, who heard the arguments, but is not able to be present to-day, desires me to say that he agrees in the judgment proposed.