The deceased was killed by an electric train. He was employed as a as a fireman and attached to the locomotive depot at Norwood Junction, having piloting duties, so that when a driver did not know the railroad, he had to travel in the engine cab and show it to him. Having reported one night at the engine shed and was then told to go to East Croyden, travelling as a passenger from Norwood Junction Station by a train due to leave shortly. To catch that train he had to walk to the Junction Station. There was a recognized route had been specified as the right way since the locomotive depot was opened. The distance along this route, which was adequately lighted at night and perfectly safe, was 1,002 yards. There was, however, a short cut along the lines of the railway, the total distance of which was 841 yards. This route was dangerous because of live rails, various obstructions and electric trains. It was not lit at night and its use by employees of the respondents was strictly prohibited. The deceased took this route and was killed by an electric train coming up behind him. He had departed from the recognized and safe- route and was walking along the highly dangerous route in close proximity to the rails used by electric trains. His widow claimed workers compensation.
Held: The claim succeeded. Proceeding to the railway station was to report duty and was during the course of his employment.
Lord Wright said: ‘I have often reflected with sadness that the Act was to be administered with as little technicality as possible. Yet thousands of reported cases have accumulated round it and fresh ones are likely to go on accumulating so long as the Act remains in its present form. . . The fundamental and initial question in every claim under the Act must be whether the accident arose out of and in the course of the employment. That is a question of fact which can only be decided by the County Court Judge by applying his common sense and his knowledge of industrial conditions to the evidence ‘ However: ‘our duty is to follow the law as we believe it to have been laid down in the previous decision of the House of Lords.’
Viscount Maugham said that three questions had to be answered: ‘First, looking at the facts proved as a whole, including any regulations or orders affecting the workman, was the accident one which arose out of, and in the course of, his employment?
Secondly, if the first question is answered in the negative, is the negative answer due to the fact that when the accident happened the workman was acting in contravention of some regulation or order?
Citations:
[1940] UKHL 1, [1940] 2 All ER 383
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Health and Safety, Personal Injury
Updated: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.248490
