Rodger and Others v. School Board of Paisley [1911] ScotLR 413 (22 February 1911)

Rodger and Others v. School Board of Paisley [1911] ScotLR 413 (22 February 1911)

The accident did not arise out of the deceased's employment because his employment did not expose him to any special or increased risk beyond that faced by any member of the public; the risk of fainting and falling in the street was not incidental to his employment but was a general risk to which all persons were equally exposed.

Citation
[1911] ScotLR 413
Parties
Appellants: Mrs Annie Rodger, Alexander Rodger, Hugh Rodger, and Annie Rodger (children of William Rodger); Respondents: School Board of Paisley
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
22 February 1911
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Inner House, First Division, Court of Session; Appeal From Sheriff Substitute Acting as Arbitrator Under Workmen's Compensation Act 1906
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; decision of Sheriff-Substitute affirmed
Legal Topics
Workmen's Compensation, Accident Arising Out of Employment, Master and Servant, Statutory Interpretation
Employment Law Compensation Law Workmen's Compensation Accident Arising Out of Employment Master and Servant Statutory Interpretation

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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mrs Annie Rodger, Alexander Rodger, Hugh Rodger, and Annie Rodger (children of William Rodger)

Appellants

School Board of Paisley

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Inner House, First Division, Court of Session; Appeal From Sheriff Substitute Acting as Arbitrator Under Workmen's Compensation Act 1906

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accident resulting in the janitor's death arose out of his employment within the meaning of section 1(1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act 1906

Ratio Decidendi

The accident did not arise out of the deceased's employment because his employment did not expose him to any special or increased risk beyond that faced by any member of the public; the risk of fainting and falling in the street was not incidental to his employment but was a general risk to which all persons were equally exposed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; decision of Sheriff-Substitute affirmed

Orders

  • The Court answered the question in the affirmative, holding that the accident did not arise out of the deceased's employment.