Medical evidence and the laws relating to compensation for injury / by R.J. Collie, M.D., J.P.

  • Robert John Collie
Date:
1909
Catalogue details

Licence: In copyright

Credit: Medical evidence and the laws relating to compensation for injury / by R.J. Collie, M.D., J.P. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    41/44 page 37
    ases as red lead entering a wound, but this is somewhat different in irinciple. In the case of Broderick v. the London County Council, which rose after the present Act came into force, the workman contracted nteritis through inhaling noxious gases whilst working in the sewers, he result of which was to accelerate long existing heart disease, hereby incapacitating him for work before he would otherwise have •ecome incapable of working. The medical evidence was to the effect hat enteritis was generally caused by some irritant entering the ystem, usually in the nature of a bacillus. The county court judge ound that the contracting of enteritis was not an injury by accident; Iso that the presence of noxious gases in the atmosphere in which he workman was employed was incidental to the nature of the mployment and involved a risk of poisoning by such gases ; that b was not unexpected or unforeseen, but was a result which might be aused to anyone engaged in such work, and, therefore, made an award a favour of the Council. The workman appealed against the decision f the county court judge, and the day before the appeal came on for tearing the workman died. The hearing was therefore adjourned, and ubsequently the proceedings were revived by the deceased workman’s vddow, and came before three judges of the Court of Appeal. The ourt unanimously dismissed the appeal without calling upon counsel or the Council to argue the matter, the ground of their decision being hat it was not enough to say that the injury was caused by the imployment, but that there must be the further element of accident, vhich was absent in this case. The Master of the Rolls pointed out hat the House of Lords had laid it down that the doctrine as to the lisease of anthrax was not to be extended to all cases of disease jontracted by a workman during his employment. An important case upon this point was heard at the Bow County pourt in July last (Haylett v. Vigor). The deceased had worked for some years, as a painter, for contractors, and for three or four days in August, 1907, had worked for another person. In September symptoms )f “ plumbism ” were observed, and on the 25th of that month le entered a hospital, but all traces of “ plumbism ” had before that late passed away. He died on October 2nd. The county court judge bund that the immediate cause of death was granular kidney; that granular kidney is a sequela of lead poisoning, but is also a sequela of ^out, of alcoholism, heart pressure, and other complaints; and that ead poisoning was not proved to have been the cause of the granular ddney or of the death, but that, on the other hand, the employers did lot prove that it was not the cause of death, and awarded £260 jompensation. This decision was appealed against, and the Court
    digitised image 1
    digitised image 2
    digitised image 3