Scottish Court of Session Decisions

This was an appeal upon a stated case in the matter of an arbitration brought before the Sheriff of Lanarkshire at Glasgow under the Workmen's Compensation Act 1897, between Patrick Healy, dock labourer, Govan, claimant and appellant, and James MacGregor & Ferguson, stevedores, Glasgow, respondents. The claimant asked an award of twenty shillings per week from 27th June 1899 during his lifetime, or until altered or terminated by the Court.

The following facts were admitted:—(1) That the appellant is a dock labourer, and was, while in the employment of the respondents, who are stevedores, engaged on 4th October 1898 in loading a steamboat at a dock in the harbour of Glasgow; (2) that while stowing away a large pinion wheel on board said vessel the same fell on the appellant, causing injuries to his left leg; (3) that there are a number of steam cranes attached to the quays of said harbour which the respondents are entitled to use when loading and unloading vessels, but which cranes were not used in loading the vessel in question; (4) that in the course of loading said vessel a steam winch on board thereof was used by the respondents for the purpose of loading.

In these circumstances the Sheriff-Substitute ( Guthrie) held (1) that the employment in which the appellant was engaged at the time of the accident was not within the Workmen's Compensation Act; and (2) that the respondents were not, according to the appellant's averments and the facts admitted, undertakers in the sense of Act. He accordingly dismissed the application, and found the appellant liable to the respondents in the sum of £2, 2s. of expenses.

The questions of law for the opinion of the Court were:—“(1) Whether the appellant, who was a dock labourer, having been injured when employed by stevedores in loading a vessel at a dock in the harbour of Glasgow, attached to which dock there were steam cranes used for the purpose of loading and unloading vessels, but which cranes were not used in loading the vessel in question, is entitled to compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act 1897. (2) Whether the appellant, having been employed as aforesaid, is entitled to compensation under the said Act in respect that the steam winch on board said vessel was used by the respondents for the purpose of loading the vessel. (3) Whether the employment in the course of which the appellant received his injuries is an employment to which the said Act applies.”

Argued for the appellant—In terms of the Workmen's Compensation Act 1897 (60 and 61 Vict. cap. 37), section 7 (1) and (2), and of the Factory and Workshop Act 1895 (58 and 59 Vict. cap. 37), section 23 (1), the respondents were the occupiers of a dock which was a factory. The opinions in the case of Jackson v. Rodger & Company, July 4, 1899, 1 F. 1053, 36. S.L.R. 851 (first case) supported this view. [The Court intimated

Page: 455↓

that the first case of Jackson was only a decision upon relevancy, and adjourned the case to enable counsel to consider the opinions delivered in the second case of Jackson on 30th January last.] The second case of Jackson v. Rodger & Company, January 30, 1900, 37 S.L.R. 390, was complicated by the question whether the dock there was a factory which was a shipbuilding yard under the Factory and Workshop Act 1878 (41 and 42 Vict. cap. 16), section 93 (2), and fourth schedule, part two (24). A dock could not be a shipbuilding yard unless steam, water, or other mechanical power was used in aid of the manufacturing process. That complication was not present in this case. The effect of the clauses referred to in the Acts of 1897 and 1895 was, that that all docks were “factories” for the purposes of the Act of 1897. The provisions of the Factory Acts in so far as applied to docks by the Act of 1895 were applied by that Act itself, and did not require to be applied by the action of any authority. It did not signify here whether the machinery on the dock was being used or not, because for the purposes of the 1897 Act a dock was a “factory,” whether the machinery was being used or not, and the machinery used for loading or unloading to or from a dock was also a “factory.” In such circumstances as were present here, the workman must be held to have been employed “on or in or about” a dock. This was decided by implication in the first case of Jackson, cit., because if this were not so the Court in that case would not have allowed proof. The appellant was therefore entitled to compensation from the respondents under the Act of 1897. The case of Aberdeen Steam Trawling and Fishing Company v. Peters, March 16, 1899, 1 F. 786, did not apply, because the workman there was a seaman, and employed as such.

The sections of the Acts referred to are quoted ante, page 391.

Counsel for the respondents were not called upon.