Caton v. The Summerlee and Mossend Iron and Steel Co., Ltd

Factual and Procedural Background

A workman employed as a cinder washer at a colliery completed his day's work and was proceeding home along a private branch railway line owned by the employer, leading from the colliery to the main line of a public railway. Approximately 230 yards from his workplace, he was killed by an engine belonging to the employer. The workman’s representatives sought compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act 1897.

The Sheriff-Substitute found the employer liable to pay compensation of £150 to the deceased’s representatives. The employer appealed, raising two legal questions for the court: (1) whether the accident occurred “arising out of and in the course of the employment” given that it happened after the workman had finished his day’s work; and (2) whether the accident occurred “on or in or about a mine” since it took place 230 yards from the place of employment.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the accident, having occurred after the workman’s day’s work was done, was one “arising out of and in the course of the employment” within the meaning of the Workmen's Compensation Act 1897.
2. Whether the accident happened “on or in or about a mine” within the meaning of the Act, given the location 230 yards from the place of employment.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The workman had completed his day's work at the time of the accident.
• The accident site was 230 yards away from the mine, thus outside the scope of the Act.
• The Sheriff-Substitute misinterpreted relevant case law.

Respondent's Arguments

• The Workmen's Compensation Act 1897 incorporates the definition of “mine” from the Coal Mines Regulation Act 1887, which includes any siding “adjacent to and belonging to the mine.”

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court examined whether the accident arose out of and in the course of employment, focusing on the timing and location of the injury. The majority held that since the workman had completed his work and was on his way home, he was no longer engaged in the course of employment, and the employer had no duty towards him at that time. The accident occurred 230 yards from the workplace, on a private railway line used by employees, but this distance was considered too great to be regarded as “on or in or about a mine.” The court reasoned that if a private railway line extended for a considerable distance, it would be unreasonable to classify any accident along its length as occurring about the mine. The court referred to the precedent in Gibson v. Wilson to reinforce that injuries occurring before or after working hours, when the worker is not engaged in employment duties, are not compensable.

One dissenting opinion argued that the accident did occur within the premises of employment and that the workman was still in the course of employment at the time of the accident, emphasizing the nature of the private railway as part of the employer’s premises and the habitual use of the railway by employees to travel to and from work.

Ultimately, the majority found the Sheriff’s decision to award compensation was incorrect, answering the first legal question in the negative and finding it unnecessary to address the second question.

Holding and Implications

The court held that the accident did not arise out of and in the course of the workman’s employment as required by the Workmen's Compensation Act 1897, and thus the representatives were not entitled to compensation.

The direct consequence is that the employer is not liable to pay compensation for this accident. The court did not establish new precedent but applied existing principles regarding the scope of employment and the definition of premises “on or in or about a mine.”