Ct. ofApp.] Di x o n v. St e a m s h i p Ay r e s o m e (O w ne rs). [Ct. o f Ap p. Way t h a t w as n o t th e r ig h t w a y , he n e cessa rily
'y e n t o u ts id e th e scope o f h is e m p lo y m e n t ; t h a t th e evidence show ed t h a t in le a v in g a s h ip on w h ic h he w as engaged th e w o rk m a n
"was k ille d in d o in g a n a c t fo r th e purposes o f his e m p lo y e rs ’ tra d e o r business, a n d th e re v'ras n o evidence o f a n y p r o h ib itio n a g a in s t his le a v in g th e s h ip in th e w a y he d id ; t h a t th e re w as n o evidence o n w h ic h th e C o u n ty C o u rt ju d g e c o u ld fin d t h a t th e w o rk m a n k n e w t h a t th e w a y he le f t th e s h ip w as n o t th e r ig h t Way ; a n d t h a t th e w o rk m a n ’ s a c t in so le a v in g th e s h ip w as no m o re th a n a d e v ia tio n fr o m th e P rescribed m e th o d o f le a v in g th e s h ip : t h a t th e ju d g e fa ile d t o d ir e c t h im s e lf w it h re g a rd to th e d is tin c tio n be tw e e n acts d iffe re n t in h in d fr o m tho se w h ic h th e w o rk m a n w as e m p lo y e d t o do a n d acts w h ic h m e re ly a m o u n te d to m is c o n d u c t in p e rfo rm in g w o r k w h ic h th e W orkm a n was e m p lo y e d t o do ; t h a t as th e w o r k m a n was k ille d w h ile d o in g a n a c t fo r th e Purposes o f a n d in c o n n e c tio n w i t h h is e m p lo y e rs ’ tra d e o r business w h ile he was a b o u t his e m p lo y m e n t, a n d a t th e tim e w h e n a n d a t j th e place w h e re he was c a r r y in g o u t h is e m p lo y - ! u ie n t, a n d as such a n a c t w as n o t a n d was n o t j alleged t o be a n “ ad d e d p e r il,” i t d id n o t dis- | e n title th e d e p e n d a n t t o c o m p e n s a tio n in respect o f th e w o r k m a n ’ s d e a th .
W illia m Shakespeare a n d J . Charlesworth t ° r th e a p p e lla n t, th e d e p e n d a n t.— T h e re was evide nce t o ju s t i f y th e de cisio n o f th e C o u n ty C o u rt ju d g e t h a t th e f a t a l a c c id e n t to J ames C ham bers d id n o t arise o u t o f a n d in th e course o f h is e m p lo y m e n t. T h e ju d g e t h o u g h t h a t i f a w o rk m a n d id n o t a c t in th e r ig h t w a y , h a t p re v e n te d th e a c c id e n t fr o m a ris in g o u t o f au d in th e course o f th e e m p lo y m e n t. T h e qu e stio n is w h e th e r th e ju d g e m is d ire c te d u u n se lf. O n th e evidence th e deceased w o r k m an w as d o in g w h a t he was e m p lo y e d to do, u t n o t in th e r ig h t w a y , a n d a c c o rd in g t o th e a u th o ritie s , t h a t does n o t ta k e th e a c c id e n t
° u ts id e th e scope o f th e e m p lo y m e n t.
T h e fo llo w in g a u th o ritie s w e re re fe rre d t o : avidson (Charles I t . ) a n d Co. v . M ’Robb or y fic e r (118 L . T . R e p . 451 ; (1918) A . C. 304), a lla n t v . steam ship G a b ir (Owners o f) (12 A s p .
"Uar. L a w Cas. 284 ; 108 L . T . R e p . 50), Guest j ' Gaston a n d Co. (135 L . T . R e p . 400 ; (1927) , l b 1), H o w e lls v . Great W estern R a ilw a y 1 32 L . T . R e p . 544), K e a ro n v . K e a ro n (1911,
£* I r - L . T . 96 ; 4 B . W . C. C. 435), K eyser v . y a r d r ic k a n d Co. (1910, 4 B . W . C. C. 87),
‘ Oshbrook v . The T im e s S h ip p in g C om pany (16 f W ' M a r. L a w Cas. 209 ; 1923, 129 L . T . R e p .
°)> M o rris o n v . steam ship A b o u k ir (Owners T ) (1928, W . C. & In s . R e p . 293 ; 21 B . W . C. C.
, ’’ h S tew art (J o h n ) a n d S on L im ite d v . y y g h iir s t (116 L . T . R e p . 763 ; (1917) A . C.
r h . i f , D u c k w o rth a n d P . J . Sykes fo r th e 0n P ondents, th e e m p lo y e rs .— T h e q u e s tio n w as o f V ° r ll l e C o u n ty C o iir t ju d g e . A t th e tim e th e a c c id e n t th e deceased w o rk m a n h a d 1 sed t o be in th e e m p lo y o f th e resp on den ts.
H is e m p lo y m e n t ceased w h e n he le f t th e ship, a n d th e resp on den ts w ere n o t lia b le : (see Cook v . S team ship M o n tre a l (Owners) (1913, 108 L . T . R e p . 164 ; 6 B . W . C. C. 220).
Sc r u t t o n, L . J . — T h is is a p o in t o f some con sid e ra b le d iff ic u lt y , p a r t ly o w in g t o th e course w h ic h was ta k e n a t th e t r i a l a n d o w in g , t o some e x te n t, t o an a g ree m ent w h ic h has been m ad e b e tw e e n th e p a rtie s . A ship g o in g t o lo a d coa l w as ly in g alongside a w h a r f ; th e s h ip was 2 ft. fr o m th e w h a rf. T h e b u lw a r k , I g a th e r, was a b o u t th e le v e l o f a h a n d r a il on th e side o f th e w h a rf, each b e in g a b o u t 3ft.. 6in . h ig h , a n d th e re w as a b o u t 2f t . be tw ee n th e m . T h e fo re m a n o f th e trim m e r s a n d a t r im m e r w h o m he describes as e m p lo y e d u n d e r h im , w e n t d o w n to th e s h ip t o place th e c h u te in p o s itio n , so t h a t th e coal c o u ld be s h o t in to th e h o ld . T h e y g o t o n b o a rd , th e fo re m a n b y s to o p in g u n d e r th e h a n d ra il a n d th e n ju s t ju m p in g o r s te p p in g o n t o th e edge o f th e b u l
w a r k , a n d i t is n o t s ta te d w h e th e r C ham bers, th e dead m a n , g o t o v e r th e h a n d r a il o r u n d e r th e h a n d r a il w h e n he w e n t o v e r th e b u lw a r k . T h e y a rra n g e d th e c h u te in a b o u t te n m in u te s , a n d th e n , as th e re w as n o th in g t o t r i m u n t il some coa l h a d been s h o t in t o th e h o ld , th e y b o th le f t th e s h ip , th e fo re m a n o n t h a t occasion s tep ped o n to th e b u lw a r k a n d th e n o n t o the to p o f th e r a il, a n d th e n , as he describes i t , h o p p e d d o w n on t o th e s ta ith .
T h e evidence a b o u t C ham bers is th is : T h e m a n w h o saw h im says : “ I saw R e a y leave th e s h ip as he has s ta te d , C ham bers fo llo w e d ; w h e n he g o t his w e ig h t on th e h a n d r a il he s lip p e d a n d f e ll o n his r ig h t side.” R e a y h im s e lf says : “ I lo o k e d b a c k a n d saw C ham bers h a n g in g o n th e h a n d r a il ; i t lo o k e d as i f he h a d s lip p e d c o m in g o n th e h a n d r a il.” I t is n o t, o f course, c le a r fr o m t h a t — i t is le f t in c o m p le te d o u b t— w h e th e r th e dead m a n , C ham bers, s lip p e d in h is ju m p on th e b u lw a r k a n d th e n s lip p e d a g a in as he g o t on t o th e h a n d r a il, w h e th e r he m ade a n in e ffe c tiv e ju m p because he s lip p e d on th e b u lw a r k , a n d , conse
q u e n tly , d id n o t la n d square on th e h a n d ra il, o r w h e th e r he g o t a f ir m ju m p fr o m th e b u lw a r k a n d s lip p e d w h e n he to u c h e d th e h a n d ra il.
H o w e v e r, u n fo r tu n a te ly , th e r e s u lt o f th e s lip w as t h a t he w as k ille d .
W h e n one reads th e evidence o f th e fo re m a n i t w i ll be seen t h a t he said : “ I a m e m p lo y e d b y th e H a r t le y M a in C o llie ry C o m p a n y , a n d C ham bers was e m p lo y e d u n d e r m e as a t r im m e r . ” O ne exp ects to fin d t h a t th e de fe n d a n ts are th e H a r tle y M a in C o llie ry C o m p a n y , b u t th e de fe n d a n ts are n o t th e H a r tle y M a in C o llie ry C o m p a n y ; th e de fe n d a n ts are th e ow ne rs o f th e s h ip , a n d i t appears th a t th e u n io n w h o deals w it h these tr im m e rs , a n d th e s h ip p in g fe d e ra tio n w h o de al w it h th e s h ip ha ve a s o rt o f a g re e m e n t t h a t a tr im m e r s h a ll be tre a te d as b e in g in th e e m p lo y o f th e s h ip , so t h a t th e ow ners o f th e s h ip are p u t as th e d e fe n d a n ts . T h a t m a y raise a q u e s tio n — a v e r y tro u b le s o m e one in some cases— because
118
O r. o f Ap p.] Di x o n v. St e a m s h i p Ay r e s o m e (O w n e rs ). [Ct. o f Ap p. tr im m e r s v e r y o fte n w o r k t w o o r th re e ships
a t a tim e , g o in g fr o m one t o th e o th e r. I n whose e m p lo y is th e tr im m e r w h e n he is g o in g fr o m s h ip A t o s h ip B o n th e w h a r f ? T h a t is one o f th o se in te re s tin g q u e s tio n s t h a t th e people w h o m ad e th is a g ree m ent n e v e r th o u g h t a b o u t, a n d w h ic h w i ll be fo u g h t o u t, I suppose, som e d a y .
B u t th e fa c t o f th e p o s s ib ility o f such an a g re e m e n t a t once m a y raise th is q u e s tio n . T h e s h ip is th e s h ip , a n d its b u lw a r k is th e s h ip ’ s b u lw a r k . T h e h a n d r a il is o n th e q u a y , a n d th e q u a y does n o t b e lo n g t o th e s h ip . I f a m a n has la n d e d o n th e h a n d r a il a n d th e n fa lls , is he o n th e s h ip ’ s prem ises a t a ll, a n d , i f he is n o t o n th e s h ip ’ s prem ises, has his e m p lo y m e n t ceased ? Counsel w h o w e re p re se n t a t th e t r i a l b o th t o ld us t h a t t h a t p o in t was ra ise d in a rg u m e n t. O ne s a id t h a t, a lth o u g h i t was raised, i t w as n o t pressed v e r y fo r c ib ly , a n d th e le a rn e d C o u n ty C o u rt ju d g e ta k e s no n o tic e o f i t , a n d does n o t re fe r t o i t a t a ll in h is a w a rd , a n d n o b o d y asked h im t o re fe r t o i t w h e n i t was fo u n d t h a t h is ju d g m e n t was b la n k o n th e s u b je c t, a lth o u g h , as counsel f o r th e resp on den ts says : “ W h y s h o u ld I ask h im t o de al w i t h i t w h e n I h a d g o t a de cisio n in m y fa v o u r on th e o th e r p o in t ? I f I h a d asked h im t o de al w i t h i t I m ig h t h a v e g o t a de cision a g a in s t m e on t h a t p o in t, w h ic h w o u ld n o t ha ve he lp ed m e a t a ll. ” T h e le a rn e d ju d g e n o t d e a lin g w i t h t h a t p o in t a t a ll— I w i l l say w h a t I h a v e t o say a b o u t i t in a m o m e n t— does de al w it h t h is o th e r p o in t. H is a w a rd , w h ic h I u n d e rs ta n d expresses th e ju d g m e n t w h ic h he gave a t th e tim e , says : “ T h e q u e s tio n in d is p u te in t h is case w as w h e th e r th e a c tio n o f th e deceased in le a v in g th e vessel as he d id was a n a c t done in th e course o f h is e m p lo y m e n t.
T h e w itn e s s R e a y says d e fin ite ly i t w as n o t th e r ig h t w a y o f le a v in g ,” a n d he also adds a p o in t a b o u t th e la d d e r, w it h w h ic h I w i ll deal in a m o m e n t.
T h e re has been a series o f cases in w h ic h ju d g e s h a v e e n d e a vo u re d t o la y d o w n w it h m ore o r less success th e d is tin c tio n w h ic h e x is ts . W it h o u t a d d in g a f u r t h e r v e rs io n I h a d b e tte r re p e a t th e la nguage w h ic h I used m y s e lf, a n d rep e a te d a fte rw a rd s , fir s t o f a ll in th e case o f W a rd le v . E nlho ven a n d Sons (116 L . T . R e p . 103), a n d th e n in th e case o f Guest v . Gaston a n d Co. (135 L . T . R e p . 400 ; (1927) 1 K . B . 1).
I n ' th e case o f W a rd le v . E nlhoven a n d Sons I said th is (116 L . T . R e p . 103 ; (1917) W . C. &
In s . R e p ., a t p . 22) : “ I f a m a n is d o in g th e w o r k he was e m p lo y e d t o do, b u t d o in g i t n e g lig e n tly , a n d m eets w i t h a n a c c id e n t, i t is n o t th e re fo re ne cessa rily o u ts id e his e m p lo y m e n t;
th e a c c id e n t m a y s t ill arise o u t o f h is e m p lo y m e n t. A v e r y good illu s t r a t io n o f t h a t is th e case o f B la ir a n d Co. L im ite d v . C h ilto n (113 L . T . R e p . 514 ; (1915) 8 B . W . C. C. 324), w h e re a m a n w as e m p lo y e d t o w o r k a m a c h in e s ta n d in g ; a n d he w o rk e d i t s it t in g do w n , a n d because o f h is w o r k in g i t s ittin g , w h ic h was a n e g lig e n t w a y o f d o in g i t , a n a c c id e n t happ en ed. T h e re i t was h e ld t h a t th e a c c id e n t arose o u t o f h is e m p lo y
m e n t. Y o u m a y h a v e cases, o n th e o th e r h a n d , w h e re a m a n is d o in g s o m e th in g d iffe re n t fro m w h a t he is e m p lo y e d t o do, w h ic h has been expressed in v a rio u s w a y s , such as b e in g o u ts id e th e sphere o f h is e m p lo y m e n t, o u ts id e th e scope o f h is e m p lo y m e n t, o r in a n o th e r t e r r it o r y to t h a t in w h ic h he w as e m p lo y e d t o w o r k ; th e n th e a c c id e n t does n o t arise o u t o f h is e m p lo y m e n t. B u t th e re is th e m o re d iff ic u lt class o f case in w h ic h th e m a n is d o in g w h a t he was e m p lo y e d t o d o , b u t is d o in g i t in such an e x tr a o r d in a r y a n d u n u s u a l w a y t h a t th e c o u rts fin d t h a t th e a c c id e n t does n o t arise o u t o f his e m p lo y m e n t, because he w as n o t e m p lo y e d t o do th e w o r k in th e p e c u lia r w a y in w h ic h he was d o in g i t . A n illu s t r a t io n o f t h a t is th e case o f Russell v . A . G. M u r r a y L im ite d (1915, W . C. & In s . R e p . 532 ; 5 B . W . C. C. 81), w h e re a w o rk m a n w as e m p lo y e d t o a tte n d to b e ltin g , a n d h a d th e d u t y o f re p la c in g th e b e ltin g i f i t s lip p e d o ff th e s h a ftin g . I n th e ro o m in w h ic h he w o rk e d th e re w e re la dders w h ic h he c o u ld use t o g e t t o th e b e ltin g ; b u t he chose n o t t o g e t a la d d e r, b u t t o c lim b on t o a s lo p in g w in d o w -le d g e in o rd e r fr o m t h a t s lo p in g w in d o w -le d g e t o p u t o n th e b e ltin g , a n d he fe ll a n d su s ta in e d in ju r ie s , fr o m w h ic h he d ie d . T h e c o u r t h e ld , in t h a t case, t h a t th e r is k he w as u n d e r ta k in g arose fr o m such an u n u s u a l w a y o f p e rfo rm in g th e w o r k t h a t th e a c c id e n t d id n o t arise o u t o f h is e m p lo y m e n t, because th e w a y in w h ic h he d id w h a t he was e m p lo y e d t o do w as n o t w it h in th e scope o f th e w o r k t h a t he was e m p lo y e d t o d o . T h a t p r in c ip le o r s ta te m e n t is also expressed b y P ic k fo r d , L . J . , in th e case o f P ep pe r v . SayeT (1914, W . C. & In s . R e p ., a t p . 427) : ‘ I t is possible t o im a g in e cases in w h ic h th e w o rk m a n has a c te d in such an un rea sona ble w a y th a t, even th o u g h he w e re d o in g s o m e th in g w ith in h is e m p lo y m e n t, th e m a n n e r o f d o in g i t w o u ld be so fa r re m o v e d fr o m a n y th in g c o n te m p la te d b y e ith e r p a r t y t h a t i t w o u ld n o t be h e ld to be w it h in th e e m p lo y m e n t a t a ll. ’ ”
T h a t s ta te m e n t I re fe rre d t o a n d repeated in th e case o f Guest v . Gaston a n d Co. (s u p •)>
a n d i t has been re p e a te d w i t h a p p ro v a l in a n u m b e r o f o th e r cases b y o th e r ju d g e s . So t h a t th e q u e s tio n w h ic h th e le a rn e d C o u n ty C o u rt ju d g e h a d here, assu m in g he h a d those cases in h is m in d , w as : T h e re b e in g a la d d e r b y w h ic h th e m a n c o u ld g e t o ff th e s h ip — eve ry s h ip is b o u n d t o ha ve s o m e th in g o f t h a t sort b y w h ic h a m a n can g e t o ff i t — e ith e r a la d d e r o r a g a n g w a y o r p la n k s — w as th e g e ttin g 011 a n d o ff th e s h ip b y w a y o f s te p p in g fr o m th e q u a y t o th e to p o f t h e b u lw a r k a n d fr o m the re t o th e to p o f th e h a n d ra il, in th e language ot P ic k fo r d , L . J . (1914, W . C. & In s . R e p ., a t p . 427) : “ so fa r re m o v e d fr o m a n y th in g con
te m p la te d b y e ith e r p a r t y t h a t i t w o u ld n o t be h e ld t o be w it h in th e e m p lo y m e n t a t a ll ’
I f th e re w as evidence on w h ic h th e learned C o u n ty C o u rt ju d g e c o u ld fin d e ith e r w a y , th a t w o u ld be a m a tte r fo r h im , a n d w e c o u ld n o t in te rfe re . I f he h a d n o t con sid ered t h a t dis
t in c t io n a t a ll we m ig h t, as in th e ease o f th e
ASPINALL’S MARITIME LAW CASES.
119 Ct. o f Ap p.] Di x o n v. St e a m s h i p Ay r e s o m e (O w ners). [ Ct. o f Ap p. m a n g e ttin g o n t o th e m o v in g t r a m , send th epase b a c k t o h im t o con sid er. T h e q u e s tio n
?s w h e th e r th e re was a n y evidence u p o n w h ic h , m th e la nguage o f P ic k fo rd , L . J . , he c o u ld ha ve come t o th e c o n c lu s io n t h a t g e ttin g o ff th e ship, w h ic h was a t h in g w h ic h th e m a n h a d to do u n d e r h is e m p lo y m e n t— he h a d t o g e t on to th e s h ip a n d g e t o ff i t w h e n he h a d done his w o r k — b y s te p p in g fr o m th e b u lw a r k t o th e q u a y o r t o th e h a n d r a il w as “ so fa r re m ove d fr o m a n y th in g c o n te m p la te d b y e ith e r p a r ty t h a t i t w o u ld n o t be h e ld t o be w it h in th e e m p lo y m e n t a t a ll. ”
W h e th e r I am r ig h t o r w ro n g in d o in g i t , I am a fr a id I a m d e c id in g th is case fr o m w h a t I k n o w a b o u t do cks, a n d I c a n n o t t h in k th e re is a n y evidence w h ic h ju s tifie s a n y b o d y in s a y in g t h a t t o g e t o ff a s h ip b y s te p p in g fr o m th e b u lw a rk t o th e q u a y w h e n th e re is tw o fe e t between th e tw o is so fa r re m o v e d fr o m a n y th in g c o n te m p la te d b y e ith e r p a r t y t h a t i t is n o t w it h in th e scope o f th e e m p lo y m e n t. I t is done, I s h o u ld t h in k , dozens o f tim e s a d a y in eve ry d o c k o n e v e ry s h ip . I t is a r is k y w a y
° f d o in g i t as appears fr o m t h is case, b u t w it h g re a t resp ect t o th o se w h o th o u g h t a s lo p in g la d d e r w as a safe w a y o f g e ttin g o ff th e s h ip , So is c o m in g d o w n a s lo p in g la d d e r a n unsafe Way o f d o in g i t , so f a r as m y exp erience goes.
I com e, th e re fo re t o th e c o n c lu s io n o n t h a t P o in t t h a t th e de cision o f th e le a rn e d C o u n ty tl? U rt i udf?e s h o u ld be set aside, o n th e g ro u n d th a t th e re was n o evidence on w h ic h he c o u ld a rriv e a t t h a t v ie w .
T h e re o n ly re m a in s th e q u e s tio n w h ic h I P ersonally t h in k is an im p o r ta n t a n d d iff ic u lt
° ne» n a m e ly , as t o w h e th e r th e p o in t w h e n th e t'm rk m a n s lip p e d on th e h a n d r a il he h a d le f t th e e m p lo y e rs ’ prem ises, so t h a t he w as th e n uo lo n g e r in th e e m p lo y o f th e s h ip , s h o u ld be s u b m itte d t o th e le a rn e d C o u n ty C o u rt ju d g e .
have com e t o th e con clu sion , b u t w it h some u o u b t, t h a t i t s h o u ld n o t be. I n th e f ir s t Place, I t h in k th e course ta k e n a t th e t r i a l is
!'f>t such as t o d is tin c t ly raise i t . I t seems .h a t th e re is no tra c e o f i t in th e le a rn e d ju d g e ’ s Judgm ent, a n d he was n o t asked t o decide i t i 'Cn i t was fo u n d t h a t he was n o t in fa c t d e cid in g i t . F u r th e r , i t appears to m e t h a t be fa c ts are m u c h to o ne bu lou s t o raise, re a lly , a specific case o f th e m a n b e in g o ff th e s h ip . h e n th e a c c id e n t happ en ed. T h e s lip w h ic h ro u g h t h im d o w n m a y h a v e be gun o n th e u lw a rk , in w h ic h case he w o u ld ha ve been on be e m p lo y e rs ’ prem ises, a n d i f th e s lip occurs 1 th e course o f one step— w h e n one fo o t is on ,e shfp a n d one on th e shore— I t h in k i t is
^ x tre m e ly d iff ic u lt t o say t h a t th e m a n o u g h t f.° be d e p riv e d o f his r ig h ts because, in th e . uurse o f t h a t one step, a t one end o f w h ic h he on th e s h ip a n d th e o th e r on th e shore, an to7 ent happ en ed. I do n o t w is h t h is case ha ^ahen as a de cision t h a t a n a c c id e n t . PPening o ff th e e m p lo y e rs ’ prem ises is Th°eSSari l y t o b e im p u te d t o th e e m p lo ye rs, en T are many cases in w h ic h g e ttin g o ff th e ip lo y e rs ’ prem ises th e e m p lo y e rs ’ r is k has
ceased. I decide t h is case on th e p e c u lia r fa c ts o f t h is case, a n d th e course ta k e n a t th e t r ia l.
F o r these reasons I t h in k t h a t th e le a rn e d C o u n ty C o u rt ju d g e ’ s de cisio n m u s t be set aside. Is th e a m o u n t o f c o m p e n s a tio n agreed ?
Shakespeare.— N o , m y L o r d . T h e m a tte r w i ll h a v e t o go b a c k t o th e le a rn e d C o u n ty C o u rt ju d g e t o f ix th e c o m p e n s a tio n . I t is a case o f a n in fa n t.
Sc r u t t o n, L . J . — V e r y w e ll. T h e case m u s t be re m itte d to th e le a rn e d C o u n ty C o u rt ju d g e t o decide th e a m o u n t o f co m p e n s a tio n due to th e in fa n t.
Sl e s s e r, L . J . — I agree t h a t t h is ap pe al m u s t be a llo w e d , fo r th e reason t h a t, in m y ju d g m e n t, th e re is n o evidence on w h ic h th e le a rn e d C o u n ty C o u rt ju d g e c o u ld com e t o th e c on
c lu s io n t h a t th e a c c id e n t b y w h ic h th e deceased lo s t h is life d id n o t h a p p e n in th e course o f h is e m p lo y m e n t. T h e te s t w h ic h has been m e n tio n e d b y m y L o r d , a n d w h ic h I also a p p ly , w h ic h is m e n tio n e d in m a n y cases, in v a rio u s phrases, b e g in n in g w it h B arn es v . N u n n e ry C o llie ry C om pany (105 L . T . R e p . 961 ; (1912) A . C. 44), P lu m b v . Cobden F lo u r M il ls C om pany (109 L . T . R e p . 759 ; (1914) A . C. 62), a n d p a r tic u la r ly in P ep pe r v . Sayer (7 B . W . C. C.
616), is : “ H a s th e w o rk m a n a cte d in such an un rea sona ble w a y t h a t even th o u g h he was d o in g s o m e th in g w ith in h is e m p lo y m e n t, th e m a n n e r o f d o in g i t w o u ld be so f a r re m o v e d fr o m a n y th in g c o n te m p la te d b y e ith e r p a r ty t h a t i t w o u ld n o t be h e ld t o be w it h in th e e m p lo y m e n t a t a ll ? ”
T h a t te s t has been a p p lie d t o one o r tw o cases, a t a n y ra te , w h ic h raise qu estio ns n o t u n lik e tho se in th e p re se n t case. I t has, fo r e x a m p le , been h e ld t h a t w h e re a p ro p e r ga ng
w a y w as p ro v id e d , a n d a seam an chose t o ju m p fr o m th e q u a y t o th e s h ip in s te a d o f u s in g th e p ro p e r g a n g w a y a n d fe ll in t o th e w a te r, th e a c c id e n t c o u ld n o t be said t o arise o u t o f th e e m p lo y m e n t. T h a t is th e case o f M a r t in v . F u lle rto n a n d Co. (1908, S. C. 1030).
I n t h a t case th e re w as evidence t h a t th e re was a p ro p e r g a n g w a y p ro v id e d . H a d th e re been a n y evidence here o f an a u th o ris e d w a y o f le a v in g th e s h ip , a n d h a d th e le a rn e d C o u n ty C o u rt ju d g e based his fin d in g on a n y such evidence, I do n o t t h in k t h a t i t c o u ld ha ve been d is tu rb e d ; b u t th e evidence in d ic a te s to me t h a t th e re w as n o a u th o ris e d w a y w h ic h can p ro p e rly be fo u n d o n th e evidence fo r le a v in g th e s h ip a t a ll. I t is n o t suggested t h a t th e m e th o d o f ju m p in g was s p e c ific a lly a u th o ris e d , a n d th e o n ly o th e r m e th o d o f le a v in g th e s h ip w h ic h is suggested was b y m eans o f a lo n g e ig h te e n -fo o t la d d e r. M r. R e a y , w h o , i t is tr u e , was n o t e m p lo y e d b y th e s h ip even n o tio n a lly fo r th e purposes o f th is case, as a p p a re n tly was th e a p p e lla n t here, b u t w h o was th e fo re m a n , said t h a t Cham bers, th e deceased, was e m p lo y e d u n d e r h im as a tr im m e r , a n d he also said t h a t he a fte rw a rd s saw a lo n g
1 2 0
Di x o n ». St e a m s h i p Ay k e s o m e (O w ne rs). [Ct. o f Ap p. Ct. o f Ap p. ]
e ig h te e n -fo o t la d d e r. T h a t was h is evidence, a n d i t appears fr o m t h a t t h a t c e r ta in ly he, M r.
R e a y , d id n o t k n o w o f a n y la d d e r w h ic h c o u ld be used as a n a u th o ris e d m eans o f le a v in g th e s h ip . O f course, t h a t is n o evidence w h a te v e r t h a t th e deceased k n e w o f a n y such a u th o ris e d w a y . I t is said a g a in s t t h a t , t h a t in cross- e x a m in a tio n , M r . R e a y s aid t h a t s te p p in g across th e r a il is n o t th e r ig h t w a y , b u t t h a t leaves th e m a tte r s t ill in c o m p le te d o u b t as t o w h e th e r a n y o th e r m e th o d h a d been a u th o ris e d fo r le a v in g th e s h ip . B u t i t does n o t fo llo w because s te p p in g across th e r a il is n o t th e r ig h t w a y t h a t u s in g th e la d d e r w o u ld h a v e been th e r ig h t w a y , o r w o u ld n o t h a v e been th e r ig h t w a y .
T h e re fo re , th e case seems t o m e t o be d is tin g u is h a b le fr o m M a r t in v . F u lle rto n an d Co.
(sup .), w h ic h a p p lie d th e d o c trin e o f P ep pe r v . S ayer (sup .), P lu m b v . Cobden F lo u r M il ls C om pany (sup .), B arn es v . N u n n e ry C o llie ry C om pany (sup .), a n d th e de cisio n in K e a ro n v . K e a ro n (45 I r . L . T . 96), w h e re i t w as h e ld t h a t i f th e re is n o g a n g w a y , a n d n o o th e r m eans o f access b u t t o ju m p fr o m th e q u a y , th e a c c id e n t m a y arise o u t o f th e e m p lo y m e n t ; a n d in K eyser v . B u rd ic k a n d Co.
(4 B . W . C. C. 87) i t was s im ila r ly de cid ed t h a t i f th e o n ly m eans o f g e ttin g o n shore is t o slide d o w n a ro p e , t h a t is n o t such a n un rea sona ble use as to b r in g th e a c t o f th e w o rk m a n o u ts id e th e sphere o f th e e m p lo y m e n t.
I n m y ju d g m e n t, d iffe rin g , u n fo r tu n a te ly , fr o m m y L o r d in k n o w in g n o th in g a b o u t docks, I t h in k th e re is n o evidence in t h is case t h a t a n y a u th o ris e d w a y was p ro v id e d fo r le a v in g th is s h ip . A l l w e k n o w is , t h a t t h is m a n fo llo w e d th e e x a m p le o f t h e fo re m a n in le a v in g th is s h ip b y ju m p in g fr o m th e s h ip t o th e q u a y . I n th o se circu m sta n ce s, i t appears to m e, once i t is conceded t h a t i t is necessary fo r th e m a n , b y th e n a tu re o f h is business, t o leave th e s h ip , th e re b e in g n o a u th o ris e d w a y , th e re is n o evidence t h a t t h is was a n un rea sona ble w a y o f le a v in g th e s h ip , a n d t h a t w o u ld con clu de th e m a tte r o n th e a u th o ritie s , t h a t t h is w as a m ere m e th o d w h ic h m a y o r m a y n o t be a v e r y id e a l m e th o d , b u t is a m e th o d w it h in th e sphere o f h is e m p lo y m e n t, a n d he has n o t suffered o r done a n y th in g w h ic h w o u ld p ro d u ce a n y adde d p e r il t o h is e m p lo y m e n t n o t c o n te m p la te d re a s o n a b ly b y b o th p a rtie s .
T h e re re m a in s o n ly th e f u r t h e r q u e s tio n w h e th e r a n y th in g can be said here w it h re g a rd to th e fa c t t h a t i t m a y be t h a t th e a c c id e n t o c c u rre d o u ts id e th e prem ises o f th e e m p lo ye rs.
I say “ m a y be ” because, o n th e evidence, i t is e x tre m e ly d o u b tfu l w h e th e r th e a c tu a l a c c id e n t w as th e s lip o r th e g ra s p in g o f th e h a n d ra il, o r w h e th e r th e s lip o c c u rre d on th e prem ises, o r w h e th e r i t o c c u rre d o n th e h a n d r a il ; th e w h o le m a tte r is le f t in some o b s c u rity on t h a t p o in t. A lth o u g h i t has been said, a n d v e r y f r a n k ly a d m itte d b y counsel fo r th e a p p e lla n t, t h a t th e m a tte r was m e n tio n e d , I
I say “ m a y be ” because, o n th e evidence, i t is e x tre m e ly d o u b tfu l w h e th e r th e a c tu a l a c c id e n t w as th e s lip o r th e g ra s p in g o f th e h a n d ra il, o r w h e th e r th e s lip o c c u rre d on th e prem ises, o r w h e th e r i t o c c u rre d o n th e h a n d r a il ; th e w h o le m a tte r is le f t in some o b s c u rity on t h a t p o in t. A lth o u g h i t has been said, a n d v e r y f r a n k ly a d m itte d b y counsel fo r th e a p p e lla n t, t h a t th e m a tte r was m e n tio n e d , I