- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Co. v. Highley
Factual and Procedural Background
An employee of Company A, while waiting at a railway junction for a connecting train with his foreman and other workers, crossed a number of railway lines to obtain hot water for breakfast in a mess-room provided for staff. Instead of using a bridge or subway, the group walked over the rails and the deceased crawled under the couplings of what they assumed was a stationary goods train. The train moved and the employee was killed instantly.
The widow (“Plaintiff”) sought compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act 1906. The County Court Judge dismissed the claim but stated that, had jurisdiction existed, he would have awarded £175. The Court of Appeal reversed that decision and ordered payment in that sum. Company A (“Appellant”) appealed to the House of Lords, asking that the County Court decision be reinstated.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the fatal accident “arose out of and in the course of” the employee’s employment within section 1 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act 1906.
- Whether the Court of Appeal was entitled to disturb the County Court Judge’s factual findings on the basis that those findings were influenced by an error of law or were unsupported by evidence.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant’s Arguments
- The employee voluntarily assumed an added and unnecessary peril by crawling under the trucks when safe alternative routes existed.
- Company rules (specifically “rule 26”) forbade walking over the line except when required by duty; any contrary practice was not sanctioned.
- The County Court Judge’s finding that the accident did not arise out of the employment was one of fact and should not have been overturned.
Plaintiff’s Arguments
- Obtaining hot water for breakfast was a recognised incident of the men’s employment, bringing the journey to the mess-room within the course of employment.
- Crossing the metals at the chosen point was the usual route taken by employees with the knowledge and acquiescence of management; no warnings were given.
- The employee was therefore performing an authorised act in an improper manner, not stepping outside the scope of his employment.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Gane v. Norton Hill Colliery Company (1909) 2 K.B. 539 | An accident may still arise out of the employment where a workman follows a usual, employer-tolerated route even if that route is obstructed. | Distinguished: the Lords held that Gane did not govern because, unlike that case, there was no evidence that the employer acquiesced in employees crawling under stationary trucks. |
| The Steamship “Blackrock” case (title not further identified) | General observations on the limits of compensation where an employee adds an independent peril. | Referenced by Judge Sumner to illustrate that adding an extraneous hazard takes the workman outside the employment. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
Judge Finlay (Lord Chancellor) emphasised that the decisive inquiry is whether the circumstances of employment caused the accident. He concluded that the employee voluntarily adopted “an additional and quite unnecessary risk” unconnected with any duty, so the statutory test was not met.
Judge Haldane accepted that the accident happened during the currency of employment but found that its cause—passing between trucks—was not attributable to the employment. The County Court Judge’s contrary finding was one of fact, supported by evidence, and should stand.
Judge Dunedin observed that higher-court authority binds on points of law, not findings of fact. On the facts, no acquiescence by the employer in crawling under trucks was proved; therefore the employee had stepped outside the employment by adding a peril.
Judge Atkinson rejected the Court of Appeal’s reading of Gane, stating that permission to cross lines does not imply authority to go under or over trucks when a safe detour is readily available.
Judge Sumner framed a general test: an accident arises out of employment only if it was part of the employment “to hazard, to suffer, or to do” the act causing injury. Because climbing under a standing train was not part of the job, the accident lay outside the employment.
Collectively, the House found no legal error in the County Court Judge’s evaluation of the evidence and held that the Court of Appeal had improperly substituted its own view of the facts.
Holding and Implications
HOLDING: Appeal allowed; the County Court decision dismissing the claim is restored. Compensation is therefore refused.
Implications: The judgment re-affirms two principles: (1) an employee who introduces an additional and unnecessary peril acts outside the scope of employment, breaking the causal link required by the Act; (2) appellate courts should not overturn factual determinations of County Court Judges in compensation cases unless legal error or absence of evidence is shown. No new precedent was set, but the decision clarifies the limits of employer liability where a worker departs from authorised methods.
Alert