440

THE COLLIERY GUARDIAN.

February 28, 1913.

WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION.

(Specially Contributed.)

Drawing an Inference.

Baker v. NLirfield Coal Company.—In this case
(January 23, Court of Appeal) Harriet Bates, of Dews-
bury, claimed compensation for the death of her
husband^ a collier, who died as the result of an accident
he met with while returning to the pit bottom from his
work for the respondents in the Dark Lane Colliery.
The county court judge held that the accident did not
arise out of the man’s employment. The facts were
that on April 21, 1912, about 2.30, when the shift was
over, Bates was on his way from the working place to
the pit bottom. On his way he met two other men, but
they said they were going to ride on a tub, which was
an offence against the Coal Mines Regulation Act.
Bates said he would walk on, but would wait for the
others at the pit bottom. He accordingly set out
smartly. Shortly afterwards the two men heard Bates
call out, and on going up found him lying along one
haulage road, his head lying along the lines of the
empty corves, and his feet along those on which the full
ones travelled. He was taken to the hospital, and died
later from fracture of the cervical vertebrae. The
doctor said that his injuries might have been caused by
a man walking quickly, whose head came into contact
with the roof. The county court judge drew the
inference that the man was not walking at the time the
accident happened, but was riding upon a tub, and
therefore committing an offence against the Coal Mines
Regulation Act. He (counsel) contended that there
was no evidence to justify the county court judge in
drawing any such an inference.

Without calling upon counsel for the respondents,
their lordships held there was evidence to support the
award of the county court "judge, and dismissed the
appeal.

When the Accident does not Diminish Wages.

Wale v. Hall and Snell Limited. — In this case
(Keighley, November 20) a furnace tenter claimed com-
pensation for injury to his eye. His Honour said that
he reserved judgment, not because there was any doubt
in his mind as to whether the applicant was entitled to
compensation, but because he thought it was desirable to
draw attention to the broad principles which governed
these cases. It seemed to be erroneously supposed that
any workman who suffered an accident was entitled
under the Act to be awarded compensation, but that
was not the law. If a workman suffered an accident
which at the time of application for compensation had
not diminished his wages, he was not entitled to any
compensation at all, although he might possibly be
entitled to compensation if his wages were diminished
at some later time.

unfit for work. He also said : “ The question at issue
seems to have been one of fact, and on questions of fact
there is no appeal given by the Act, nor, in my opinion,
would it be in the interests generally of injured work-
men that there should be.”

An Echo of the Coal Strike.

Walters v. Rhymney Iron Company.—In this case
(Merthyr, September 12) the claim was by a workman
admittedly incapacitated as the result of an accident at
the company’s New Duffryn pit. He now claimed full
compensation for a period in which the company had
not provided him with light work. On February 29
1912, and for some months previously, the applicant was
employed on light work at wages of £1 5s. 6d. a week.
In addition he was paid 2s. 9d. a week partial compensa-
tion. At the commencement of the coal strike the
company found that they had no light work for the
applicant and other men on light employment, and
refused to give applicant any light work, though he had
not given notice with the general body of workmen.
Applicant claimed full compensation for the period of
the strike in consequence of the company’s refusal to
provide him with light work.

The judge held that the refusal of the company was
entirely due to the abnormal condition of the labour
market as the result of the strike, and he dismissed the
claim with costs.

A Breach of Colliery Rules.

Smith v. Nunnery Colliery Company.—In this case
(Sheffield, August 22) it appeared that Smith was
engaged in removing props in the Park gate seam, when
he came to a prop which was fixed or “ capped.” He
knocked the top of the prop with a hatchet to loosen it,
and some other props gave way. Rock fell, breaking
his thigh and injuring his head and legs. The applicant,
in giving evidence, denied that he struck the prop with
a heavy hammer, and said he would eventually have
used a “ dog and chain” to draw the prop.

It was contended on the part of the defence that the
applicant’s injuries were brought on by his own neglect
in the manner in which he knocked the prop. He ought
to have chipped down the head of the prop and have
then drawn it with a “ dog and chain,” and then he
would have stood in a place of safety when the prop fell.
It was the roof over this prop which fell, and not another
portion of rock.

A miner who was working close by said that the
applicant had already knocked out two props with a
hammer, and was knocking this third prop out when
the roof fell at the spot, and not elsewhere.

Judge Benson accepted this version of the accident.
He said that the applicant had been guilty of a breach
of the colliery rules in using a hammer and not the
dog and chain, and his application therefore failed.

weeks compensation was paid at the rate of £1 per
week. The thumb of the left hand was injured, and an
operation became necessary. For 15 months he had
been back at work, and was earning as much as before
the accident, but the thumb was painful. The insurance
company had been asked to consent to a declaration of
liability, but they offered, instead, a letter admitting
liability.

His Honour (Judge Bonsey) remarked that a declara-
tion might be held over the head of an employer for 20
years. He did not think the Act meant such a thing.
The question was : Had the man proved that he suffered
now, or would suffer in the futbre, any incapacity as a
result of the accident ? Upon the evidence he answered
that question in the negative, and refused the applica-
tion, with costs.

‘‘Arising Out of,” &c.

Burns v. Summerlee Iron Company Limited.—It
appeared in this case (Court of Session, November 28)
that the deceased was employed by the respondents
repairing an aircourse. There were two ways of getting
wood necessary for the repairs to the aircourse. The
shortest way, and the one that ought to have been
taken, would have necessitated the workmen pulling the
wood up a perpendicular shaft of about 19 ft. The other
way saved the labour of pulling the wood up this shaft,
and was by getting the wood taken up on a hutch on
what was known as the “ wheel brae.” The workman
got permission from the hanger-on (the man in charge)
to send a hutch full of wood to the top, and it went up
safely. The hanger-on then coupled on an empty hutch,
and gave a signal which was an intimation to the man
at the top that he could put on a loaded hutch when he
liked. The hanger-on then went away for a moment or
two, and the deceased filled the empty hutch with wood,
and seems to have started to walk up the incline behind
the hutch. The hutch became derailed, and Burns was
caught between the two hutches and was killed. The
widow claimed £300 compensation.

At Airdrie Sheriff Court, the Sheriff - Substitute
found that the accident did not arise out of the
deceased’s employment.

The Appeal Court upheld the decision of the Sheriff
Substitute, with costs, holding that there was evidence
from which it might be inferred that the deceased
usurped the functions of another workman, and that
therefore he was not in the course of his employment
at the time of the accident.

Suicide an Accident.

Ternby v. Workington Iron and Steel Company
Limited.—In this case (Whitehaven, October 30) it
appeared that a workman was injured in the respondents’
mine on July 20, 1910. On November 1, 1911, he
committed suicide by hanging himself, and it was con-
tended on behalf of the widow that the death resulted

Review of Weekly Payments.

M’Donald or Duris v. Wilsons and Clyde Coal Company-
—In this case (Hamilton, November 28) it appeared that
Duris was injured in No. 1 pit, Clyde Colliery, on
February 16,1909, and was totally incapacitated. By
agreement he received compensation from his employers
of £1 a week down to May 24, 1909. He was then given
light employment by the company, and his compensation
was reduced by agreement to 16s. Id. per week. On
December 6, 1910, he was dismissed, along with other
workmen, owing to a reduction of the number of men
employed. Two months later he presented a minute
of review to the Sheriff, claiming an increase of com-
pensation on the ground that, while he was fit for light
work as he had been engaged in, he was unable, owing
to his condition, to obtain employment in the district.
On March 3rd, 1911, Sheriff Shennan found that he
had set forth no relevant ground for reviewing the
weekly payments, and refused the crave. Pursuer
appealed to the Court of Session, which affirmed the
decision of Sheriff Shennan. The case was then taken
to the House of Lords, where the decision was reversed,
and the case sent back to the Court of Session. Apply-
ing the judgment of the House of Lords, the Court of
Session recalled the interlocutor of Sheriff Shennan,
and sent the case back to him. On September 3 last
he allowed a proof, and evidence was led accord-
ingly. He now gave a decision sustaining pur-
suer’s claim to have his weekly compensation pay-
ment increased to £1 per week, and finding him
entitled to expenses. In the Sheriff’s opinion, Duris
has proved his inability to find suitable employment in
the district, and that this inability was the result of
the accident sustained on February 16th, 1909.

A Novel Point.

Adams v. Palmer s Shipbuilding and Iron Company.—
In this case an application was made for a declaration
of liability (Jarrow, December 3), it appeared that the
applicant had received the injuries, and that for 17

from the injury. On the other hand, it was contended
by the respondents that a new act had intervened
between the accident and the subsequent death. In
giving judgment his Honour Judge Gowan Taylor said
he had considered whether there had or had not been a
breach in the chain of causation between the injury and
the death, within the doctrine laid down in Durham v.
Clarke (1902,2 K.B., 292). He was advised by the medical
referee that the accident to the head caused the trau-
matic injury to the brain, which was the cause of the
severe pain in the head and subsequent depression
which culminated in unsoundness of mind on Novem-
ber 1, 1911, during which mental condition the work-
man committed suicide by hanging. Bearing in mind
the inference of fact which should be drawn from the
evidence, he came to the conclusion that the death
resulted from the injury, and that there was no new
act intervening between the injury in the mine and
the death of the workman. He awarded in favour of
the applicant the agreed amount of compensation of
£231 7s. 6d., with costs on C scale.

A Futile Question in Parliament.

Employers have sometimes had cause to complain
that the finding of a county court judge with regard to
a question of fact cannot be questioned in the Court of
Appeal. Sometimes this rule of law tells—or appears
to tell—against the workman, and the representatives of
Labour in the House of Commons appear to think that
the Act should be amended accordingly. A question
was asked of Mr. McKenna, a little time back, with
reference to a man whose compensation had been
reduced from 7s. to Id. a week on the ground that he
was able to work. He had lost his right hand in a clay-
crusher at some brickworks. He was asked whether, by
legislation or otherwise, a further hearing could be
secured without the heavy expenses of an appeal. Mr.
McKenna pointed out that it was open to the man to
make a further application to the Court in the event of
his condition becoming such as to render him altogether

*#* We shall be pleased to answer in this column questions
relating to Workmen’s Compensation and Employers’
Liability. All communications mu*t be authenticated by the
name and address of the sender, whether for publication or
not. No notice can be taken of anonymous communications.

Hull Coal Exports.—The official return of the exports of
coal from Hull for the week ending Tuesday, February 18
1913, is as follows: — Amsterdam, 888 tons ; Alderney,
192; Alexandria, 10,172; Antwerp, 1,058 ; Barcelona, 2,174 j
Buenos Ayres, 4,552; Bremen, 2,797 ; Copenhagen, 466 .
Christiania, 1,346; Drontheim, 200; Danzig, 296; Elsinore,
6,115; Ghent, 497; Genoa, 2,747; Gothenburg, 852;
Harlingen, 1,243; Hamburg, 8,089; Harburg, 1,572.
Kalmar, 1,028; Marseilles, 1,029; Malmo, 427; Newfair-
water, 487; Palermo, 4,695; Riga, 495; Rouen, 5,897;
Rotterdam, 2,662; Stockholm, 2,671; Stettin, 193; Saint
Peter, 463; total, 65,303 tons; corresponding period last
year, 42,464 tons.

Railway Rates and Charges.—The railway companies of
England and Wales have revised the conditions and charges
for the storage and wharfage of traffic, and for handling
services. This week bills issued by the Railway Clearing
House were exhibited at railway goods yards and offices
stating that the new charges will operate on and after
March 25. The alterations affect all kinds of traffic. In
regard to all goods classified under heads A, B, and C, and
which require covering (coal, coke, rags, &c., being thereby
excluded), the companies give notice that, after the expira-
tion of 48 hours, they will charge 7d. per ton for storage for
the whole or part of the succeeding seven days, at the end of
which time the rate will revert to the old figure of 4d. per ton,
the idea being that the higher figure is in part a charge for
handling service. Other classifications are denoted by the
i figures 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. For goods coming under classifica-
J tion No. 1 the charge for the first week or part of the first
' week (again after the expiration of 48 hours) will be lid. a
1 ton instead of 6d., and after the first week the old figure
will apply. The increase is greater for goods falling under
the remaining classifications—2 to 5. In these cases the
new charge will be Is. a ton for the first week, and after
that 6d.—the old figure. On the matter of demurrage, a
deputation of the Chambers of Commerce waited upon the
railway managers at the Clearing House last month, but
they did not succeed in getting any general concessions.