![handle is hein.engrep/rptccca0034 and id is 1 raw text is: RE PO RTS
or
COUNTY COURT AND BANKRUPTCY CASES
ArRU6b and ftfrmiI16
IN THE
SUER~OR
COUITS.
H. oF L.] MAYDEW V. CHATTERLEY-WHITFIELD COLLIERIES LIMITED. H. OF L.
Nouze of 1,000s.
Thursday, May 30, 1918,
(Before the LoRD CHANCELLOR (Lord Finlay),
Viscount HALDANE, Lords DUNEDIN and
PARMOOR.)
MAYDEW V. CHATTERLEY-WHITFIELD
COLLIERIES LIMITED. (a)
ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL IN
ENGLAND.
Employer and workman-Personal injury by acci-
dent-Compensation-Horse driver sn pit wrong-
fully riding on tub-Whether act was outside
sphere of employment- Whether workman was
doing his work, but doing it in the wrong way-
Insufcient finding of facts - New trial-Coal
Mines Act, 1911 (1 & 2, Geo. 5, c. 50), s. 86-
Workmen's Compensation Act 1906 (6 Edw. 7,
c. 58), s. 1.
In an appeal by the workman from an order of the
Court of Appeal affirming a decision of a County
Court judge, the question was whether a rule made
in accordance with reg. 25a of the General Colliery
Regulations under powers given in s. 86 of the
Coal Mines Act 1911, that no person below ground
shall ride upon any tub or contrivance drawn by a
horse so affected the miner's employment that
disobedience to the rule was an act on his part out-
side the sphere of his employment, and an accident
which was due to that act was one for which the
employer was not liable.
Held, that there should be a fuller and more specific
statement of the facts than was contained in the
considered judgment of the County Court judge,
and that the Court of Appeal were wrong in not
directing a new trial. The case was accordingly
lad Reported by W. E. REmD, Esq., Bnrrister-at Lw.
VoL XXXIV., 702.
- remitted for a new trial with a special direction as
to costs.
Order of the Court of Appeal (33 C. C. C. Rep.
234; 117 L. T. Rep. 460; (1917) 2 K. B, 742)
discharged,
APPEAL by the workman from an order of the
Court of Appeal (reported 33 C. C. C. Rep. 234;
117 L. T. Rep. 460), affirming a judgment of His
Honour Judge Ruegg at Burslem County Court
sitting as arbitrator under the Workmen's Com-
pensation Act 1906.
The appellant was a lad who was employed at
the respondents' colliery as a horse driver. His
duty was to walk beside the coal tubs in order
that he might use a pole which he carried for the
purpose of scotching the wheels should the tubs
begin to run too fast. While employed on this
work he climbed on one of the tubs, and in conse-
quence of his lamp going out failed to see a roof
bar, against which his head was caught, and he
received permanent injury. There was an express
provision in reg. 25a of the General Colliery
Regulations, made in pursuance of sect. 86 of the
Coal Mines Act 1911, that no person below
ground shall ride, except by permission of the
manager or under manager, upon any train, tub,
or other contrivance drawn by a horse or other
animal.
The contention on behalf of the appellant was
in substance that the prohibition was not abso-
lute; that it did not define the limits of the
employment; and that here the appellant was
doing his work but doing it in the wrong way,
and was entitled to recover compensation.
The County Court judge held himself bound by
Barnes v. Nunnery Colliery Company Limited (30
C. C. C. Rep 393; 105 L. T. Rep. 961; (1912)
A. C. 44) to decide that the employers were not
liable.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.engrep/rptccca0034&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most