Murray v. Fife Coal Co., Ltd [1923] ScotLR 178 (07 December 1923)

Murray v. Fife Coal Co., Ltd [1923] ScotLR 178 (07 December 1923)

The prohibition breached by the deceased was directed to the manner of performing his duties, not to the scope of his employment. Following the House of Lords decision in Estler Bros. v. Phillips, such a breach does not remove the worker from the scope of employment. Therefore, the accident arose out of and in the course of employment, and compensation is payable.

Citation
[1923] ScotLR 178
Parties
Appellants: Mrs Jane M'Lean Braid or Laurence or Wilson or Murray and Marion Wallace Laurence; Respondents: Fife Coal Company, Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
07 December 1923
Procedural Posture
Workmen's Compensation Appeal / Appeal From Sheriff Substitute's Arbitration Award
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Scope of Employment, Breach of Safety Orders, Compensation for Workplace Death, Effect of Statutory and Employer Prohibitions
Employment Law Workers' Compensation Statutory Interpretation Scope of Employment Breach of Safety Orders Compensation for Workplace Death Effect of Statutory and Employer Prohibitions

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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mrs Jane M'Lean Braid or Laurence or Wilson or Murray and Marion Wallace Laurence

Appellants

Fife Coal Company, Limited

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Workmen's Compensation Appeal / Appeal From Sheriff Substitute's Arbitration Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a fatal accident caused by breach of an explicit safety prohibition arises out of and in the course of employment for purposes of compensation
  2. 2 Whether breach of a statutory or employer-imposed safety order removes a worker from the scope of employment

Ratio Decidendi

The prohibition breached by the deceased was directed to the manner of performing his duties, not to the scope of his employment. Following the House of Lords decision in Estler Bros. v. Phillips, such a breach does not remove the worker from the scope of employment. Therefore, the accident arose out of and in the course of employment, and compensation is payable.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • The question of law answered in the negative: there was no evidence entitling the arbitrator to find that the death did not result from personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of employment.
  • Compensation to be awarded to both claimants on the footing of partial dependency.