United Kingdom House of Lords Decisions

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom House of Lords Decisions >> Hewitt v. Owners of S.S. "Duchess." [1911] UKHL 627 (15 June 1911)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1911/49SLR0627.html
Cite as: [1911] UKHL 627, 49 ScotLR 627

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

SCOTTISH_SLR_House_of_Lords

Page: 627↓

House of Lords.

(On Appeal from the Court of Appeal in England.)

Thursday, June 15, 1911.

(Before The Lord Chancellor (Loreburn), Lords Atkinson, Gorell, and Robson.)

49 SLR 627

Hewitt

v.

Owners of S.S. “Duchess.”

Subject_Master and Servant — Workmen's Compenpensation Act 1906 (6 Edw. VII, cap. 58), sec. 1 — “Accident Arising Out of and in the Course of the Employment” — Return to Sphere of Duty — Seaman — Quay.
Facts:

A master mariner, while his ship was lying in Bangor Roads, went ashore to a pier, as he was entitled to do. It was not proved whether he went upon the ship's business or for his own purposes. On returning to the quay he hailed his ship for a boat to convey him on board. While waiting for the boat he fell off the quay and was drowned.

Held that there was no evidence that the accident arose out of and in the course of his employment, and that his dependants were not entitled to receive compensation.

Headnote:

A master mariner in the respondents' employment was drowned under circumstances stated supra in rubric. His dependants claimed compensation, which was awarded by the County Court Judge; this was reversed by the Court of Appeal
Page: 628↓
( Cozens-Hardy, M.R., Fletcher-Moulton and Buckley, L.JJ.).

The dependants appealed.

At the conclusion of the argument for the appellants their Lordships gave judgment as follows:—

Judgment:

Lord Chancellor (Loreburn)—I think that this appeal should be dismissed. The question which was argued before us was that this accident, which proved fatal to the unfortunate master of the vessel, arose out of his employment. He fell off the pier into the water while waiting to return to his ship. It was not established by the evidence that he had to go ashore on the ship's business, and I think that the risk from which he perished was not one specially connected with his employment, such as crossing a plank or a gangway leading to the ship or going in a boat to the ship might be. Under these circumstances I think that the conclusion at which the Court of Appeal arrived was right, and that this appeal should be dismissed.

Lords Atkinson, Gorell, and Robson concurred.

Appeal dismissed.

Counsel:

Counsel for Appellants— Greer, K.C.— Clement Davis. Agents— Bower, Cotton, & Bower, Solicitors.

Counsel for Respondents— Atkin, K.C.— Alexander Neilson. Agents— Botterell & Roche, Solicitors.
1911

About BAILII - FAQ - Copyright Policy - Disclaimers - Privacy Policy amended on 25/11/2010