The National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act, 1946 / with general introduction and annotations by N.P. Shannon and Douglas Potter.

  • United Kingdom
Date:
1946
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: The National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act, 1946 / with general introduction and annotations by N.P. Shannon and Douglas Potter. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    28/252 (page 18)
    NO. 35.—NATIONAL INSURANCE (INDUSTRIAL INJURIES) _ What he chose to do was no concern of his employer. Therefore in law the he, at a time when he was not covered by the Workmen’s Compensation Acts, gave up his common law rights against the railway company in respect of accidents caused by the negligence of the company’s servants. So far as formal logic goes there may be no answer to this, but from a practical point of view the position was ridiculous, at least in many cases. practicable means whereby he could get to and from the place of work was by using the travelling facilities provided by, or by arrangement with, his employers. And when he made use of these facilities the only terms on which he could do so-were the terms dictated by his employers. It was a case of taking the employment plus the travelling as a whole, or not being employed, and in such cases there is everything to be said for regarding the travelling as part of the employment. In these circumstances. it was undoubtedly a hardship that the workman should be debarred from having any claim against anyone, either under the Workmen’s Compensation Acts to or from his work. Section 9 of the Act, post, provides that an accident happening while an insured person is, with the express or implied permission of his employer, travelling as a passenger by any vehicle to or from his place of work shall, notwithstanding that he is under no obligation to his employer to travel by that vehicle, be deemed to arise out of and in the course of his employment, if (a) the accident would have been deemed so to have arisen had he been under such an obligation ; and (d) at the time of the accident the vehicle is being operated by or on behalf of his employer, or some other person by whom it is provided in pursuance of arrangements made with his employer, and is not being operated in the ordinary course of a public transport service. “Vehicle ’’ here includes a ship, vessel and aircraft, as well as road and rail vehicles. , This new provision gets rid of most of the difficulties disclosed in the cases under the Workmen’s Compensation Acts (for these see Willis, 27 et seq.). If, for example, facts similar to those in- St. Helen’s Colliery Co. v. Hewitson (supra) arise, the workman will be entitled to benefits under the Act. So too if a workman is, with his employer’s consent, given a lift in one of the employer’s vehicles, either to or from his work, he will similarly be entitled to benefit. It will be observed that if the vehicle in question is being operated as part of an ordinary public service at the time of the accident the case is not within the Act. 4. Accidents while meeting emergency.—There was no specific provision in the Workmen’s Compensation Acts dealing with accidents arising out of action taken by a workman in the employer’s interest during the course of the employment to meet an emergency, the action being outside the scope of the ordinary employment. Judicial decisions had, however, in this case established an exception to the general rule. In the following cases, inter alia, workmen have recovered compensation ; Kees v. Thomas, [1899] 1 Q0.B. 1015; 84 Digest 298, 2440 (workman injured in trying to stop employer's runaway horses); Hapelman v. Poole (1908), 25 T.L.R. 155; 34 Digest 316, 2595 (workman trying to get escaped lion back into cage); Culpeck.v: Onvent S.N. Co. (1922), 15 B.W.C-Gr 167 ; 34 Digest 298, 2445 (baker employed as such in ocean liner injured when passengers) ; Dermody v. Higgs and Hill, [1987] 4 All E.R. 379; Digest having difficulty). It has, however, been held that if the person whom the workman, in an emergency, endeavours to help is not a fellow workman the above exception does not apply ; see Jones v. Tarr, [1926] 1 K.B. 25 ; 34 Digest 298, 2446.