Gracie v. Clyde Spinning Co., Ltd [1915] ScotLR 706 (12 June 1915)

Gracie v. Clyde Spinning Co., Ltd [1915] ScotLR 706 (12 June 1915)

The proximate cause of the employee's incapacity was the original accident, not her refusal to undergo an operation, especially as her own medical adviser advised against it; the arbiter was wrong to disregard the medical referee's full report and to reduce compensation.

Citation
[1915] ScotLR 706
Parties
Employee/applicant: Margaret Gracie; Employer/respondent: Clyde Spinning Company, Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
12 June 1915
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Arbitration Under Workmen's Compensation Act 1906 / Court of Session Inner House, First Division
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment of arbiter recalled; compensation not reduced.
Legal Topics
Workmen's Compensation, Master and Servant, Remit to Medical Referee, Unreasonable Refusal of Operation, Review of Compensation
Employment Law Personal Injury Statutory Compensation Workmen's Compensation Master and Servant Remit to Medical Referee Unreasonable Refusal of Operation Review of Compensation

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

Parties

Margaret Gracie

Employee/applicant

Clyde Spinning Company, Limited

Employer/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Arbitration Under Workmen's Compensation Act 1906 / Court of Session Inner House, First Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the remit to the medical referee competent?
  2. 2 Was the arbiter justified in reducing compensation based on refusal to undergo operation?
  3. 3 Is refusal to undergo operation a nova causa interveniens precluding compensation?

Ratio Decidendi

The proximate cause of the employee's incapacity was the original accident, not her refusal to undergo an operation, especially as her own medical adviser advised against it; the arbiter was wrong to disregard the medical referee's full report and to reduce compensation.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment of arbiter recalled; compensation not reduced.

Orders

  • First question of law (remit competence) answered in the affirmative.
  • Second question of law (justification for reduction) answered in the negative.