Cumisky v. Proctor [1904] ScotLR 41_636 (21 June 1904)

Cumisky v. Proctor [1904] ScotLR 41_636 (21 June 1904)

A workman employed mainly in agricultural work, such as threshing, remains within the scope of the Act when performing occasional or incidental duties, such as transporting machinery between farms for threshing contracts. The injury arose out of and in the course of such employment, entitling the respondent to compensation.

Citation
[1904] ScotLR 41_636
Parties
Pursuer and Respondent: Bryce Cumisky junior; Defender and Appellant: David Proctor
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
21 June 1904
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Arbitration Under Workmen's Compensation Act 1897 / Inner House, Second Division, Court of Session
Outcome
appeal dismissed; award of compensation affirmed
Legal Topics
Workmen's Compensation, Agricultural Employment, Scope of Employment, Statutory Interpretation
Employment Law Personal Injury Statutory Compensation Workmen's Compensation Agricultural Employment Scope of Employment 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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bryce Cumisky junior

Pursuer and Respondent

David Proctor

Defender and Appellant

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent was employed 'mainly in agricultural but partly or occasionally in other work' under the Workmen's Compensation Act 1900, section 1(3)
  2. 2 Whether injury sustained during transportation of machinery between farms is covered by the Act

Ratio Decidendi

A workman employed mainly in agricultural work, such as threshing, remains within the scope of the Act when performing occasional or incidental duties, such as transporting machinery between farms for threshing contracts. The injury arose out of and in the course of such employment, entitling the respondent to compensation.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed; award of compensation affirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Case remitted to Sheriff to dispose of question of expenses