Legget & Sons v. Burke

Factual and Procedural Background

The Plaintiff, a mason's labourer aged sixty-three earning £1, 2s. 6d. per week, claimed compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act 1897 following the death of his last surviving son, who died from injuries sustained in an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment at the Defendant's tannery. The son, aged twenty-two, was employed as a labourer at a wage of 17s. per week and was killed on the first day of his employment. The son lived in the family home with the Plaintiff, a sister who acted as housekeeper, and a crippled brother who was unable to earn. The deceased son contributed significantly to household expenses, including rent, taxes, and gas, and his death forced the Plaintiff to give up his own house and move in with a married sister. The Plaintiff argued he was wholly or partly dependent on the son's earnings at the time of death. The Sheriff-Substitute found the Plaintiff was in part dependent on the son's earnings and awarded compensation of £75. The Defendant appealed, raising the legal question of whether the Plaintiff was in part dependent on the son's earnings within the meaning of the Workmen's Compensation Act 1897.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Plaintiff was in part dependent upon the earnings of his deceased son at the time of the son's death within the meaning of the Workmen's Compensation Act 1897.
2. Whether the determination of dependency in this case raised a question of law or was purely a question of fact not subject to appeal.

Arguments of the Parties

Defendant's Arguments

• The Sheriff-Substitute misinterpreted the phrase "in part dependent" in the Act.
• The deceased son was not supporting the Plaintiff but was himself receiving support.
• The Plaintiff's support of his crippled brother was voluntary and charitable, not a legal obligation.
• The employment of the sister as housekeeper was for the Plaintiff's convenience, not indicative of a family dependent relationship.
• The Plaintiff's rheumatism and uncertain ability to work should not factor into the legal question of dependency.
• Legal obligations alone should determine dependency, excluding voluntary family arrangements.

Plaintiff's Arguments

• Persons were living in family with the Plaintiff, including a sister who acted as housekeeper at the deceased son's request, saving household expenses.
• The Plaintiff experienced actual pecuniary loss due to the son's death, having to give up his own house and move in with a sister.
• The ability of a claimant to maintain themselves without the deceased's assistance does not preclude dependency under the Act.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court considered whether the Sheriff-Substitute erred in law by finding the Plaintiff partially dependent on the deceased son's earnings. The Court noted that dependency is defined under section 7(2)(bb) of the Workmen's Compensation Act 1897 as persons entitled to sue for damages who were wholly or partly dependent on the deceased's earnings. The Court emphasized that the question of dependency is primarily factual, to be decided by the arbitrator. The Plaintiff's contributions to household expenses, his support of a disabled brother (though voluntary), and the living arrangements with a housekeeper sister were relevant facts. The Court found no legal error in the Sheriff-Substitute's conclusion that the Plaintiff was partially dependent. The Court also rejected the Defendant's argument that voluntary familial support arrangements and the Plaintiff's health condition should exclude dependency. The Court affirmed that pecuniary deprivation due to the son's death was sufficient to establish partial dependency. Consequently, the appeal was refused.

Holding and Implications

The appeal was dismissed.

The Court held that the Plaintiff was in part dependent on the deceased son's earnings at the time of death within the meaning of the Workmen's Compensation Act 1897. The decision affirmed the compensation awarded by the Sheriff-Substitute. The ruling confirms that factual determinations of dependency, including partial dependency, are within the purview of the arbitrator and not generally subject to appellate review unless no evidence supports the finding. No new legal precedent was established beyond affirming the factual nature of dependency under the Act and the recognition of partial dependency based on household contributions and pecuniary loss.