Praties v. The Broxburn Oil Co., Ltd [1907] ScotLR 408 (26 February 1907)

Praties v. The Broxburn Oil Co., Ltd [1907] ScotLR 408 (26 February 1907)

The accident was not directly attributable to the deceased's breach of the statutory rule, as the operation to which the rule applied was over; the subsequent act was an error of judgment in a matter left to the miner's discretion, not serious and wilful misconduct. Therefore, compensation is not barred by section 1(2)(c) of the Workmen's Compensation Act 1897.

Citation
[1907] ScotLR 408
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Jane Praties; Respondent/appellant: The Broxburn Oil Company, Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
26 February 1907
Procedural Posture
Workmen's Compensation Claim (appeal From Sheriff Court Arbitration) / Appeal to Court of Session Inner House, First Division
Outcome
appeal dismissed; Sheriff's award of compensation affirmed
Legal Topics
Workmen's Compensation, Serious and Wilful Misconduct, Breach of Statutory Rule, Causation of Workplace Accident
Employment Law Statutory Compensation Mining Law Workmen's Compensation Serious and Wilful Misconduct Breach of Statutory Rule Causation of Workplace Accident

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jane Praties

Claimant/respondent

The Broxburn Oil Company, Limited

Respondent/appellant

Procedural Posture

Workmen's Compensation Claim (appeal From Sheriff Court Arbitration) / Appeal to Court of Session Inner House, First Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the deceased's death was attributable to his own serious and wilful misconduct under section 1(2)(c) of the Workmen's Compensation Act 1897
  2. 2 Whether breach of a statutory mining rule constituted serious and wilful misconduct disentitling dependants to compensation

Ratio Decidendi

The accident was not directly attributable to the deceased's breach of the statutory rule, as the operation to which the rule applied was over; the subsequent act was an error of judgment in a matter left to the miner's discretion, not serious and wilful misconduct. Therefore, compensation is not barred by section 1(2)(c) of the Workmen's Compensation Act 1897.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed; Sheriff's award of compensation affirmed

Orders

  • Compensation of £300 awarded: £120 to widow, £30 to each of six children, with expenses