Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referenced a series of precedents to frame its reasoning:

• Small v. M'Cormick (1899): Addressed the continuity of employment and the classification of a worker as an employee despite intermittent engagements.
• Ayres v. Buckeridge, Wheale v. Rhymney Iron Company, and Jones v. Rhymney Iron Company (1902): These cases debated the method of calculating average weekly earnings, particularly for workers with sporadic employment periods.
• Lysons v. Knowles (1901): Established the principle that a workman's actual earnings, regardless of the period worked within the week, constitute his average weekly earnings under the Act.
• Niddrie and Benhar Coal Company v. Peacock (1902): Reinforced the approach that even partial week earnings should be considered as average weekly earnings.

The court contrasted the Scottish approach with certain English rulings, notably the cases of Russell v. M'Clusky (1900), Jones v. Ocean Coal Company (1899), and Hathaway v. Argus Printing Company (1901), ultimately finding the Scottish interpretation more aligned with the legislative intent of the Act.

Legal Reasoning

The court's legal reasoning hinged on a meticulous interpretation of the Workmen's Compensation Act 1897, particularly Schedule 1, Section 1 (bb), which delineates the calculation of compensation based on "average weekly earnings." The primary issues addressed were:

1. Determining whether Grewar was a workman or a contractor.
2. Establishing the period of employment relevant for calculating average weekly earnings.
3. Deciding the method for calculating average weekly earnings in cases of part-time or intermittent employment.

The court affirmed that Grewar was a workman due to his subordination and lack of control over work methods, aligning with principles established in prior case law. However, it held that his period of employment commenced only on the day of the accident, October 4, 1900, because his previous engagements were non-continuous and he actively sought employment elsewhere during the intervals.

Regarding the calculation of average weekly earnings, the court interpreted the Act to mean that earnings must be based on actual income during the period of employment with the same employer. Since Grewar was employed only on the day of the accident, his earnings for that day were taken as his average weekly earnings, setting a precedent that partial week earnings could satisfy the Act's requirements, albeit minimally.

Impact

The judgment in Grewar v. Caledonian Railway Co. had profound implications for the application of the Workmen's Compensation Act 1897 in Scotland, particularly affecting day laborers and workers with intermittent employment. Key impacts include:

• Clarification of Employment Status: Reinforced the distinction between workmen and contractors, emphasizing the importance of the employment relationship's nature in compensation claims.
• Guidelines for Calculating Compensation: Established that in cases of intermittent employment, the actual earnings on the day of injury could be used to calculate average weekly earnings, even if it results in minimal compensation.
• Legal Precedent: Provided a clear judicial approach for future cases involving similar employment patterns, thereby influencing how courts interpret "average weekly earnings" under the Act.
• Policy Considerations: Highlighted potential inadequacies in the Act's framework when applied to workers without steady employment, prompting discussions on legislative reforms.

This judgment underscored the need for precise legislative definitions and considerations for diverse employment scenarios, shaping subsequent legal debates and reforms in workers' compensation law.