Mackie v. J. & R. Ramsay [1904] ScotLR 42_114 (19 November 1904)

Mackie v. J. & R. Ramsay [1904] ScotLR 42_114 (19 November 1904)

The appellants were not 'occupiers' of the warehouse at the time of the accident as they had no control, occupation, or responsibility for the premises; the peas had not been delivered or appropriated to them, and the warehouse remained under the warehouseman's charge. Therefore, they were not 'undertakers' within the meaning of the Workmen's Compensation Act 1897 and not liable for compensation.

Citation
[1904] ScotLR 42_114
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Mrs Annie Adam or Mackie; Appellants: J. & R. Ramsay
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
19 November 1904
Procedural Posture
Appeal on Stated Case From Sheriff Court Arbitration Under Workmen's Compensation Act 1897 / Inner House, Court of Session, First Division
Outcome
Appeal allowed; decision of Sheriff-Substitute reversed.
Legal Topics
Workmen's Compensation, Definition of 'occupier' and 'undertaker', Factory and Workshop Acts, Liability for Workplace Accidents
Employment Law Statutory Interpretation Workmen's Compensation Definition of 'occupier' and 'undertaker' Factory and Workshop Acts Liability for Workplace Accidents

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mrs Annie Adam or Mackie

Claimant/respondent

J. & R. Ramsay

Appellants

Procedural Posture

Appeal on Stated Case From Sheriff Court Arbitration Under Workmen's Compensation Act 1897 / Inner House, Court of Session, First Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants were 'occupiers' of the warehouse within the meaning of the Factory and Workshop Act 1901, section 104
  2. 2 Whether the appellants were 'undertakers' within the meaning of the Workmen's Compensation Act 1897, section 7, and thus liable for compensation

Ratio Decidendi

The appellants were not 'occupiers' of the warehouse at the time of the accident as they had no control, occupation, or responsibility for the premises; the peas had not been delivered or appropriated to them, and the warehouse remained under the warehouseman's charge. Therefore, they were not 'undertakers' within the meaning of the Workmen's Compensation Act 1897 and not liable for compensation.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; decision of Sheriff-Substitute reversed.

Orders

  • Findings of the Sheriff-Substitute recalled.
  • Third and fourth questions answered in the negative.