Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

xxx xxx xxx
9. One of the tests for determining as to whether an accident could be held to have arisen out of employment is that the workman is in fact employed on or performing the duties of his employment at the time of accident. Another test would be that the accident occurred at or about the place where the performance of his duties required him to be present. It is not a case where the accident involved a risk common to all humanity and did not involve any peculiar or exceptional danger resulting from the nature of the employment or where the accident was the result of an added peril to which the workman, by his own conduct, exposed himself, which peril was not involved in the normal performance of the duties of his employment.
"There is, however, in my opinion one test which is always at any rate applicable, because it arises upon the very words of the statute, and it is generally of some real assistance. It is this: Was it part of the injured person's employment to hazard, to suffer, or to do that which caused his injury? If yes, the accident arose out of his employment. If nay, it did not, because, what was not part of the employment to hazard, to suffer, or to do, cannot well be the cause of an accident arising out of the employment. To ask if the cause of this was within the sphere of the employment or was one of the ordinary risks of the employment, or reasonably incidental to the employment, or conversely, was an added peril and outside the sphere of the employment, are all different ways of asking whether it was a part of his employment, that the workman should have acted as he was acting, or should have been in the position in which he was whereby in the course of that employment he sustained injury."

5. Apply the above test. The querulous workmen were at the gate from the morning. It was hazardous for anyone to be there where a tense situation prevailed. Yet his employment obliged Varkey to pass and repass that area. The accident arose out of his employment.

6. It is argued that Varkey exposed himself to an added peril by an imprudent act, namely, by helping Pappan to rise up from the ground. Varkey was at the place of occurrence properly in the course of his employment. To help a person to get up from the ground where he had fallen cannot be said to be an unreasonable act on the part of the person so rendering help. That is, perhaps what is expected of any fellowmen in the ordinary course of affairs, and it is not possible to dichotomize one's behaviour into workman's behaviour and fellowman's behaviour in such situations. There is nothing to suggest that Varkey participated in the melee. On the other hand the facts found by the Commissioner and narrated in the beginning of this judgment indicate that he was a loyal workman who was working on the fateful day. There is no merit in the argument that he did an imprudent act nor is there any material on which it could be found that he added to his peril by helping Pappan to get up."

"In short, my view of the statute is that the expression „arising out of the employment‟ is not confined to the mere nature of the employment. The expression, in my opinion, applies to the employment as such--to its nature, its conditions its obligations, and its incidents. If by reason of any of these the workman is brought within the zone of special danger and so injured or killed, it appears to me that the broad words of the statute „arising out of the employment‟ apply. If the peril which he encountered was not an added peril produced by the workman himself, as in the cases of Plumb and Barnes in this House, then a case for compensation under the statute appears to arise."