Topping v. Rhind [1904] ScotLR 41_573 (27 May 1904)

Topping v. Rhind [1904] ScotLR 41_573 (27 May 1904)

A sub-contractor who undertakes a substantial and essential part of the construction of a building, such as carving work integral to the original design, is an 'undertaker' under the Workmen's Compensation Act 1897 and is liable to indemnify the main contractor for compensation paid to an injured workman employed by the sub-contractor, provided the main contractor was not at fault for the accident.

Citation
[1904] ScotLR 41_573
Parties
Pursuer: Thomas Topping; Defender: John Stevenson Rhind
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
27 May 1904
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) From Lord Ordinary's Interlocutor
Outcome
appeal dismissed; judgment for pursuer affirmed
Legal Topics
Workmen's Compensation, Employer's Liability, Indemnity, Definition of Undertaker, Sub Contractor Liability
Employment Law Tort Law Workmen's Compensation Employer's Liability Indemnity Definition of Undertaker Sub Contractor Liability

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thomas Topping

Pursuer

John Stevenson Rhind

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) From Lord Ordinary's Interlocutor

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a sub-contractor for carving work is an 'undertaker' under section 7 of the Workmen's Compensation Act 1897 and liable to indemnify the main contractor for compensation paid to an injured workman.
  2. 2 Whether the work performed by the sub-contractor constitutes part of the 'construction' of the building under the Act.

Ratio Decidendi

A sub-contractor who undertakes a substantial and essential part of the construction of a building, such as carving work integral to the original design, is an 'undertaker' under the Workmen's Compensation Act 1897 and is liable to indemnify the main contractor for compensation paid to an injured workman employed by the sub-contractor, provided the main contractor was not at fault for the accident.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed; judgment for pursuer affirmed

Orders

  • Defender to indemnify pursuer for £84 paid as compensation to injured workman, with interest as concluded for.