March 28, 1918.

THE COLLIERY GUARDIAN.

645

SOME RECENT DECISIONS UNDER THE
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT.

Slipping as an Accident.

A decision in favour of the workman was given in
the case of Marsh v. Pope and Pearson Limited, which
has recently been fully reported after being argued
at length in the Court of Appeal, and to which
attention may be drawn in connection with the inter-
pretation of Section 1 of the Compensation Act, and
particularly the circumstances in which an accident
can be said to arise “ out of, and in course of, the
employment.” Early one morning the applicant, a
boy of 14, employed at the company’s colliery as a
screen boy, was walking along a road forming part
of the colliery premises. He was on his way to the
enquiry office to get his check before going to his
special work. It was admitted that he was in “the-
course of ” his employment, and the only question
was whether the accident that occurred arose “ out
of ” the employment. As the facts are of considerable
interest from the colliery point of view, they may
be reproduced at some length. The road referred to
was crossed by two lines of rails, and on one of the
rails the boy slipped and fell, striking his chin on
the ground. In his evidence the boy stated, for the
first time, that though the rail was levelled up with
wood, there was a piece of sleeper out, and that he
tripped or stumbled against one rail and cut his face
against the second. He also stated that there was
no light outside or from the buildings near, though
it appeared that there had been a light the morning
before at a corner near by, and a light at another
point on the very morning of the accident. Both
as to the state of the rails and as to the light,
evidence to the contrary effect was given for the
company, and the county court judge did not accept
the applicant’s evidence on the point. He found that
the place was adequately lighted, that the rails, on
one of which the applicant slipped, but did not trip,
were properly packed, and that the road was not
more dangerous than any other road with rails on it.
For the applicant, however, it was contended that,
quite apart from the actual condition of the road
and the rails, the mere presence of the rails, how-
ever well packed or kept, crossing the road along
which a workman “in the course of” his employment
was called upon to walk, constituted in itself a special
danger, conferring a title to compensation for an
accident caused by slipping on one of the rails.

A contention put forward on behalf of the company
was to the effect that though the road was a private
one, and not dedicated to the nublic, the latter were
hv the company’s courtesy habitually allowed to use
it, and therefore the applicant was outside the protec-
tion of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. The
county court iudge, however, rejected the contention
on the ground that the applicant was, not exercising
anv right as a member of the public, no member
of the public having any right, strictly speaking, to
use the road at all, hut was using the road “in
the course of” his employment, and not by any other
rights or for anv other reason. The employers raised
the further contention that the accident, though it
arose “in the course of” the emnlovment, did not
arise “out of” it, and that was the conclusion arrived
at bv the conn tv court judge, who considered that
the risk of a pedestrian slipping on a nronerlv laid
rail or tram line crossing a road which he had to
use was an ordinary risk. In his opinion, the youth,
in stepping on a properly made road across two pairs
of rails properly and safely laid and packed, and
properly lighted, at a place with which he was
thoroughly acquainted, was running no more risk of
an accidental slip than a large majority of the general
public had occasion to run, often many times a day,
in any well-nonulated district in the West Riding.
His Honour did not think the risk was one specially
or peculiarly incidental to the circumstances of
the particular employment in which the applicant
was engaged, but was of opinion that the same con-
siderations would have arisen if, instead of slipping
on the rail, the workman had tripped against the
kerb-stone which edged a properly, constructed foot-
way, bordering a private carriageway running
through his employers’ premises.

This finding, however, was reversed in the Court
of Appeal (Lord Justice Swinfen Eady, Lord Justice
Bankes, and Lord Justice Warrington). Lord Justice
Swinfen Eady quoted, as applicable to the case,, the
following words of the Lord Chancellor, in Dennis r.
A. J. White and Company ([1917] A.C. 479; 116
L.T.Rep. 774):—“As regards the second ground,
I think that the decision "of the county court judge
was in no sense a decision on a question of fact.
No fact was in dispute, and the case did not depend
on any inference of fact to be drawn from the facts
admitted. The only question in the case was whether,
on the admitted facts, the accident arose out of the
employment. This is not a question of fact, but of
law.” The lord justice went on to say that the
accident arose from what turned out to be a peril
of the place where the workman was, and that after
the recent decisions of the House of Lords in Thom
(or Simpson) v. Sinclair ([1917] A.C. 127; 116
L.T.Rep. 609) and the Court of Apneal in Fearnley
v. Bates and Northcliffe (117 L.T.Rep. 193), he
thought it was established that if a workman’s employ-
ment compels him to be at a particular place where
the accident happens, the accident must be assumed
to have arisen “ out of” the employment, although
it was not contributed to in any way by the nature of
the employment.

Lord Justice Bankes stated that he founded his
judgment on what Lord Shaw of Dunfermline, said
in the case of Thom (or Simpson) v. Sinclair,
especially his opinion that the expression “ arising
out of the employment ” should be applied when,
owing to the nature, the conditions or the obligations
incident to the employment, “ the workman is within
the zone of special danger, and so injured or killed.”

Distinguishing the case referred to from certain other
cases in which a different result was arrived at, Lord
Shaw said that the peril involved “was not a peril
which might fall upon the public at large, such as
the severity of the weather . . . but it was a peril
attached to the particular location in which, by the
obligation of service, the appellant was placed.”
Lord Justice Bankes added that as he understood
Lord Shaw’s statement of the law, it amounted to
this : that in any case in which it is proved that there
is something on the employer’s premises which causes
an accident to a workman, that something is in the
nature of a “ peril.” His lordship also pointed to
the decision in Thom (or Simpson) v. Sinclair had only
a day or two before been applied in the Court of
Appeal in the case of Wales v. Lambton and Hetton
Collieries Limited (117 L.T.Rep. 454), in which it
was held that a workman who, in leaving his work,
slipped on ice on his employers’ premises, was entitled
to compensation. Finally, Lord Justice Warrington
was also of opinion that the case was that of au
accident caused by a “peril” attached to the
employers’ premises, and therefore arising “ out of ”
the employment.

SIGNALS FOR RESCUE BRIGADES.

By G. L. Brown, Assoc. Heriot-Watt College, M.I.M.E.

Practice in the training of rescue brigades, both at the
rescue station and in the pit, has shown the great need
for a simple code of signals which might be used
universally. The necessity is still more apparent when
actual rescue operations are to be undertaken, at which
time a simple code would be extremely useful, and would,
no doubt, sweep away many anxious periods for those
in charge of the base operations. With such a code a
closer touch would be maintained between the base and
the brigade, and, on the whole, lead to a much safer
system of exploration than is practised in many
instances. Furthermore, the same signals could be
used by the members of the teams to “ converse ” with
each other as far as permissible; thus eliminating the
habit of temporarily “ easing ” the mouthpiece (which
may be fatal), or shouting at the top of one’s voice,
which, apart from not always being satisfactory, causes
shortness of breath and consequently increased oxygen
consumption. When any work is to be done for which
no provision is made in the code of signals, some sort
of “ dummy show” must be adopted. This must be left
to the ingenuity of the captain.

The undermentioned code has been in operation at
the North Midland Coal Owners’ Rescue Stations at
Mansfield, Chesterfield and Ilkeston for some time, with
highly satisfactory results.

Before describing the code, it is necessary to add that
signals may require to be transmitted from or to the
rescue base of operations, by a portable telephone, fitted
with a buzzer or bells, or by motor horn, oxygen
whistle, lights, tapping or knocking. Signals from one
member of a team to another may be communicated by
lights, or tapping on rails, etc., the latter not loud enough
for those at the base to treat it as a signal. Tapping
on the shoulder would be better.

By Portable Telephone with Buzzer or Bell.

With this system the duration of a buzz or ring
should be about one second, with uniform intervals
between, excepting the first two, which should be about
three seconds.

ONE—Denotes “ Are you there ? ”

ONE—Denotes the reply “ Yes.”

ONE—(Very long or interrupted) “SEND IMME-
DIATE AID.”

ONE—(Very long) Reply, “ AID IS COMING.”

The reserve team at the base should go to help at once.
TWO—“ May we go further in ? ” Or, after receiving
instructions, “ We are going in.”

TWO—Reply, “ You may go in.” (If in the negative
the signal to “ Come out” will be given).

THREE—“We are coming out.” Reply, “Come out.’’
THREE—“ Come out.” Reply, “ Coming out.”
DOUBLE THREE—“ Come out as quickly as
possible.”

(Signal from the base only to be used when conditions
are threatening the base). Reply, “ We are coming
out.”

FOUR—“We wish to speak.” This signal is from
the base only, and should be used when
important information is wanted. The brigade
must not be encouraged to speak. Answers to
any questions should be transmitted by the
buzzer, thus—ONE (short as above) “ Yes ” and
THREE — “ No.” (Any signals could be tem-
porarily arranged to represent “Yes ” and “ No.”)

FIVE—“ Are you all right ? ”

FIVE—“ Yes, all right.” (If not, then THREE will
be given).

SIX—“ Repeat your last signal.”

The best type of cable reel is one with sliding-ring
contacts, which facilitates connecting up at any part of
the journey, and if the boxes are provided with slip
connections the operation takes a few seconds only.
Signals should be transmitted when the pressure gauges
are being fread, say every 15 minutes, thus intimating
to those at the base that a proper check is being kept
on the readings. By doing these together, no undue
interruption is occasioned in the exploration work.
Where the brigade is not advancing, for example when
bui’ding a stopping, the telephone will remain connected
until the work is completed.

When constantly advancing, the reel ought to be
carried by the brigade and the cable carefully placed at
the roadside—not in the middle—and suitably protected
at corners. The cable should not be dragged. On the
return journey, the inbye box and reel should always
be brought back a safe distance, if not thought advisable
to bring it out to the base. This system has the advan-
tage that the cable acts as a guide to the reserve party
on being called to render assistance.

Signals by Knocking*, etc.

When the portable telephone is utilised to connect
the underground telephone stations with the rescue
base, or when the connection is broken, the signals may
be given by knocking on the rails with a spanner; by a
clear-sounding motor horn, or an oxygen whistle, all of
which are much easier to carry than the telephone. A
slight modification in the code is thereby necessary.

A series of tappings is to attract attention and denotes
“ Are you there ? ” After being similarly
answered, the signals may be transmitted.

Continuous or interrupted hooting of whistling,
together with several persons tapping, denotes
“SEND IMMEDIATE AID.” The reply is
similar, and denotes “AID IS COMING.”

TWO—“ May we go in ? ” or “ We are going in.”

TWO—Reply as with buzzer or bell in preceding list.

THREE—“We are coming out.” Reply, “Come
out.” ,

THREE—“ Come out.” Reply “ Coming out.”

DOUBLE THREE—“ Come out as quickly as pos-
sible.” Reply, “We are coming.’*

FIVE—“Are you all right ? ”

FIVE—“ Yes—all right” or THREE for “No, we are
coming out.”

SIX—“Repeat your last signal.”

Care must be taken when using the above methods to
make the signals distinct, and particularly so with the
tappings if used alone and when the distance is con-
siderable. The advantage of the above class of signals
is that a team should not go beyond the base out of
hearing of distinct signals. If this rule is adhered to,
then the operations will always be limited to a safe
distance from the base, and to some extent determine
how far men wearing apparatus can penetrate safely.
On the other hand there would always be a controlling
power operating from the base, so much so that a captain
would be somewhat relieved in his onerous duties.

The compressed air or oxygen whistle can be easily
fitted to a spare set of apparatus cylinders, which
generally form part of the brigade equipment. An extra
set, however, would be required. This appliance would
produce a louder and more satisfactory means of
signalling, as long as the pressure in the cylinder lasts;
but, on the whole, it cannot be considered reliable, owing
to oxygen not always being available at the base for this
purpose, and to the great disadvantage that the number
of signals is limited for each charge. For short range
work it might be advantageously used. Provided a
sufficiently large cylinder is used, an extended explora-
tion ’*ange would be permissible, solely because of a
louder signal being possible, but this might be carried
to a dangerous degree. It would be best used as a
distress signal only.

Signals by Lights.

Where the roadway is straight and the atmosphere
clear, lamp signals may be used. It is important to note
that these signals should be given in such a way that
obstacles do not intervene. The following code is easy
to remember:—

(Equivalents)—A series of tappings denotes “Are
you there ? ” ONE—and should be similarly
answered before transmitting signals.

ONE—One or more persons swinging the lamp in
front of the body, sideways, denotes “ SEND
IMMEDIATE ASSISTANCE.” At the same
time a lot of knocking on rails, etc. should be
made to attract attention.

TWO—Sharply turning the wrist denotes “ May we
go in ? ” etc.

THREE—A vertical motion, from floor to roof,
denotes “ We are coming out,” etc.

DOUBLE THREE—Flashing quickly by covering
and uncovering the light with the hand denotes
“ Come out as quickly as possible,” etc.

FIVE.—Circular motion denotes—“ Are you all
right ? ”, etc.

SIX.—Placing the hand over the light for a few
moments, then repeating (camera fashion), denotes
“ Repeat your last signal.”

The most important signals to remember are those
calling for immediate aid, and those set forth above are
considered a near approach towhat would most likely be
given were no recognised code existent. The great
advantages arising from a proper code are to create a
sense of security in the members of the rescue brigades;
to enforce the necessity of the provision, at all times, of
a reserve brigade; and, above all, to eliminate the
practice of “ splitting ” a team to go for assistance.

It is advisable when training men in the above signals
to get them to reply in any class ; say, if a lamp signal
be given, the reply may be by the buzzer or knocking.
By this means, the equivalents are soon mastered. The
men must be trained to give the reply by any of the
systems and not merely to rely entirely on signals in
kind.

The Morse system of signalling would no doubt offer
greater scope, but is certainly beyond the average miner,
apart from there being no real need for its adoption.
It is better to use sounds and appliances familiar to
the men.

The text is now issued of the Order for the restriction
of lighting, heating, and power, a summary of which was
given in the House of Commons recently by Sir A. Stanley,
President of the Board of Trade.

Fredk. E. Potter Limited, advertising agents and
contractors, have transferred all business from Pen Corner
House and Windsor House, Kingsway, to Temple
Chambers, Temple Avenue, London, E.C.

The business title of Schaffer and Budenberg Limited
has been changed to the Budenberg Gauge Company
Limited, Broadheath, Manchester, and Mr. C. F. Buden-
berg will continue to act as managing director. A circular
states that the undertaking is entirely British.