United Kingdom House of Lords Decisions

Lord Chancellor (Buckmaster)—This case does not involve the construction of obscure or doubtful phrases in an Act of Parliament. It depends entirely upon a question of evidence, and that question is whether or not there was material before the learned County Court Judge upon which he as a reasonable man could come to the conclusion that the deceased met his death by an accident in the course of and arising out of his employment.

Something has been said in the course of this case as to the character of the evidence upon which the learned County Court Judge's judgment was based. It is said—and it is true—that the evidence is evidence of circumstance, but evidence of circumstance may be, and in many instances is, more trustworthy than oral evidence and frequently is more expressive. But in either case, whether it be so regarded or not, no advantage is gained in attempting to classify and catalogue different classes of evidence. Provided that the matter has been properly admitted before the learned County Court Judge at the trial, the only question is, was there evidence before him which would support the conclusion which he reached?

Now in this case there are certain facts, which I think can be shortly stated, which will show why it is I think the learned County Court Judge's judgment was perfectly right. The deceased was chief engineer on board the steamship “Serbino,” which was making a homeward voyage from Petrograd to Hull at the time when he met his death. When the boat had been in dock before starting it was found that the propeller was bent, and in the course of the voyage from time to time difficulties arose which caused him considerable uneasiness about the condition of the propeller. There is no doubt that this was a matter about which he was very greatly concerned, and indeed on the 14th June, two days before his death, he had a conversation with another officer on board the vessel about the cause of the difficulties the ship was encountering and expressed his firm conviction that the tip of one of the blades of the propeller was broken; he referred to it two or three times on that day. Now, on the 15th June, the following day, after his watch, he went downstairs and gave directions to the steward that he should be called early the following morning. At 12·50 on the following morning he was still up and had gone to the engine-room once more for the purpose of seeing if all was right with the engine about which again there had been some difficulty, but a difficulty entirely unassociated with that in connection with the propellers. He told the man in charge that if anything happened in the night he was to be called. He went to bed, I suppose, between 12.50 and 1 o'clock. The next thing we know is that he was called at 5·40 a.m. He got up at once; he was seen by the steward to go behind the wheel-house, and he was never seen again.

So far as the facts of the voyage are connected with this man's death I believe those are the whole of the material circumstances, but there is one thing more that should be stated, and that is this—it is plain from the letters which are set out in the appendix to this case that the deceased was on terms of close and intimate affection with his wife, that his domestic relations were peculiarly happy, and that the man was looking forward to coming home. In these circumstances what is the inference that is to be drawn from the facts as to the way in which he met his death? There are three hypotheses, and I can see no more. One is that he met his death by foul play, another is that he met his death by suicide, and the third is that he met it by accident. The question of foul play may be wholly disregarded, and also, to my mind, the question of suicide. It is not merely that the evidence does not support the view that this man took his own life, but to my mind it affords convincing proof that he did nothing whatever of the kind. And I desire that this matter should be emphasised, because with the infant plaintiff bound to start life under the dark shadow of the calamity that has already overtaken her mother I think it is of the utmost importance that nothing should be said or suggested that would darken that shadow by throwing any slight upon her father's memory. Suicide, therefore, being out of the question, the only third possibility is that of accident.

Now it is quite true that accident by itself would not be sufficient to support the applicant's case. The accident must be an accident in the course of and arising out of the employment of the deceased. Now the deceased was the chief engineer on board this vessel, and his employment as chief engineer necessarily involved his control of the whole of the machinery of the ship. Further, there was, in my view, arising out of that control the duty of taking all necessary steps from time to time to ascertain the cause of any defects in the running of the machinery. Now he had formed a strong opinion that the propeller was wrong; that the defect which had happened when it was in port had been increased while the

Page: 829↓