Daily v. John Watson Ltd [1900] ScotLR 37_782 (19 June 1900)

Daily v. John Watson Ltd [1900] ScotLR 37_782 (19 June 1900)

The deceased's breach of the special rule by carrying a naked light while handling explosives not in a closed canister constituted serious and wilful misconduct under the Act, precluding compensation. The question was one of law, not fact.

Citation
[1900] ScotLR 37_782
Parties
Claimant and Respondent: James Daily; Appellant: John Watson Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
19 June 1900
Procedural Posture
Appeal in Arbitration Under Workmen's Compensation Act 1897 / Court of Session Inner House Second Division, Appeal From Sheriff Substitute
Outcome
Appeal allowed; award recalled; application dismissed
Legal Topics
Workmen's Compensation, Serious and Wilful Misconduct, Statutory Interpretation
Reparation Employment Law Workmen's Compensation Serious and Wilful Misconduct 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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James Daily

Claimant and Respondent

John Watson Limited

Appellant

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the deceased's conduct constituted 'serious and wilful misconduct' under section 1, sub-section (2)(c) of the Workmen's Compensation Act 1897
  2. 2 Whether the question was one of law or fact for appeal purposes

Ratio Decidendi

The deceased's breach of the special rule by carrying a naked light while handling explosives not in a closed canister constituted serious and wilful misconduct under the Act, precluding compensation. The question was one of law, not fact.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; award recalled; application dismissed

Orders

  • The Court answered the question in the affirmative
  • Award recalled