M'William v. Great North of Scotland Railway Co.

In an arbitration under the Workmen's Compensation Act 1906 (6 Edw. VII, cap. 58) between William M'William, sometime railway porter, Portsoy, appellant , and the Great North of Scotland Railway Company, respondents , the Sheriff-Substitute ( Dudley Stuart ) refused compensation and stated a Case for appeal.

The Sheriff-Substitute further stated—“Upon these facts I found that the accident which caused the appellant's injuries, while it arose in the course of, did not arise out of his employment, in respect that the appellant's act was (1) unnecessary, (2) obviously dangerous, and (3) not expected or required of appellant but expressly forbidden. I therefore refused compensation.”

The question of law for the opinion of the Court is—“Whether there was evidence upon which it could competently be found that the appellant's injuries were not the result of an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment within the meaning of the Workmen's Compensation Act 1906?”

Argued for respondents—The breach of a rule did not debar a workman from compensation— Conway ( cit .); Mawdsley ( cit .); Durham v. Brown Brothers & Company, Limited , December 13, 1898, 1 F. 279, 36 S.L.R. 190 ; but it was a fact relevant to be considered in the question whether the accident arose Page: 416 ↓

For these reasons I am of opinion that the learned Sheriff-Substitute's finding cannot stand, and that we should sustain the appeal, answer the question put to us in the negative, and remit to the arbitrator to proceed as accords.