Fullerton, Hodgart, & Barclay v. Logue [1901] ScotLR 38_738 (26 June 1901)

Fullerton, Hodgart, & Barclay v. Logue [1901] ScotLR 38_738 (26 June 1901)

The accident occurred in the course of the deceased's employment as he was seeking equipment necessary for his work. There was insufficient proof that the deceased knew of the prohibition or the increased danger, and habitual disregard of the rule by other workers was established. The employer failed to prove serious and wilful misconduct; thus, compensation was rightly awarded.

Citation
[1901] ScotLR 38_738
Parties
Appellant: Fullerton, Hodgart, & Barclay; Respondent: Thomas Logue
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
26 June 1901
Procedural Posture
Appeal in Arbitration Under Workmen's Compensation Act 1897 / Inner House, Second Division, Court of Session
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; judgment for respondent affirmed.
Legal Topics
Workmen's Compensation, Reparation, Accident in Course of Employment, Serious and Wilful Misconduct
Labour Law Tort Law Workmen's Compensation Reparation Accident in Course of Employment Serious and Wilful Misconduct

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 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fullerton, Hodgart, & Barclay

Appellant

Thomas Logue

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal in Arbitration Under Workmen's Compensation Act 1897 / Inner House, Second Division, Court of Session

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the fatal injury to the deceased was caused by an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment within section 1(1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act 1897
  2. 2 Whether the fatal injury was attributable to the serious and wilful misconduct of the deceased under section 1(2)(c) of the Act

Ratio Decidendi

The accident occurred in the course of the deceased's employment as he was seeking equipment necessary for his work. There was insufficient proof that the deceased knew of the prohibition or the increased danger, and habitual disregard of the rule by other workers was established. The employer failed to prove serious and wilful misconduct; thus, compensation was rightly awarded.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; judgment for respondent affirmed.

Orders

  • Questions of law answered in the affirmative.
  • Compensation award to respondent upheld.