163-NLR-NLR-V-47-CHARLES-APPU-Appellant-and-THE-CONTROLLER-OF-ESTABLISHMENTS-Respondent.pdf
462
Charles A-ppu v. The Controller of Establishments.
1946Present: Wijeyewardene J.
CHARLES APPU, Appellant, r~id THE CONTROLLER OFESTABLISHMENTS, Respondent.
368—Workmen’s Compensation, C 3016,882/43.
Workmen's Compensation—Accident—Assault by one workman on another—No risk of assault in the nature of the employment—No liability—Workmen’s Compensation Ordinance {Cap. 117), s. 3.
Whore a workman was injured in consequence of an assault by anotherworkman in the premises where they wore employed but it was not oneof the risks of his employment that he might be assaulted—
Held, that the accident did not arise out of his employment.
A
PPEAL against an order rejecting a claim made under theWorkmen’s Compensation Ordinance.
H. Wanigatunga, for the applicant, appellant.
-Jansze, C.C., for Crown.
Cur. adv. milt.
WIJEYT5 WA KDENE J.—Charles Appu v. The Controller of Establishments. 463
October 17, 1946. W[j eyewardene J.—
This is an appeal against an order rejecting the claim of the applicantunder the Workmen’s Compensation Ordinance.
The applicant was employed as an Engine Turner and Lighter underthe Ceylon Government at the time of the accident. He was transferredin December, 1943, to Kurunegala where there were rooms on the Railwaypremises and these were available to the workmen desiring to occupythem. He reported for duty at the Running Sh^d there on December 6,1943, and was given by the Fitter-in-Charge a key for a room in themiddle of a line of five rooms usually occupied by unmarried workmen.He found that his predecessor had occupied the room at the end of theline and insisted on having that rocm. The Fitter-in-Charge explainedto him that all the five rooms were of the same size and type and thatsome days ago the comer roo: x was allotted to another workman,Fernando, as Fernando’s sisters who were staying with Fernando foundit rather inconvenient to occupy a room in the middle of a line occupiedby unmarried men. Though there was no hard and fast rule that aworkman would be given the room occupied by his predecessor, theFi 'er-in-Charge asked Fernando to give the corner room to the applicantin order to avoid any unpleasantness. Fernando agreed to vacate hisroom the next day. Shortly afterwards, when the applicant was return-ing from the room of a workman after making arrangements to leavehis luggage there for the day, Fernando assaulted him at the RunningShed and bit bis right index finger. That finger had to be amputatedas a result of the injury.
It was agreed at the argument before me that the loss of earningcapacity was 10 per cent, and that the claim was in respect of a personalinjury caused to a workman by an accident arising in the course of hisemployment. The only question that has to be decided is whetherthe accident arose out of the employment.
This case does not fall within the class of cases (e.g., Trim Joint DistrictBoard of Management v. Kelly 1 ; Reid v. British <Ss Irish Steam PacketCompany 2) where the nature of the employment was such that the likeli-hood of an assault was connected with and incidental to the employ-ment. Here there is a specific finding by the Commissioner that therewas no proof whatever “ that there was attaehea to his employmenta risk of being assaulted This case is similar to Lee v. S. <Se J.Breckman, Limited3. In that case .Lee, a porter employed by a firm ofupholsterers, was carrying furniture from his employers’ premises to arailway collecting van in charge of Debuse, the va„ driver. In thecourse of the loading an altereation arose between the two men owing toa remau made by Lee regarding Debuse’s method of work. Debusestruck Lee and the injury resulted in the loss of one eye. The Court ofAppeal held that those facts did not justify a finding that the accidentarose out of the employment.
1 (1914) Appeal Cases 667.2 (1921) 2 King’s Bench DivLion 319.
3 (1928) 21 Butter-worths Workman’s Compensation Casas 32.
464
Kodiluivakku v. The Tribunal of Appeal.
Mr. Wanigatunga who appeared for the appellant sought to bring thiscase within the fourth proposition laid down by Russell, L.J. in Lawrencev. George Mathews (1924) Limited1 :—
“ A sufficient causal relation or causal connection between theaccident and the employment is established if the man’s employmentbrought him to the particular spot where the accident occurred, andthe spot in fact turns out to be a dangerous spot. If such a localityrisk is established, then the accident “ arises out of ” the employment,even though the risk which caused the accident was neither necessarilyincident to the performance of the man’s work, nor one to which hewas abnormally subjected ”.
That proposition based, on the decision in Thom or Simpson v. Sinclair2was stated in those terms in a case where the Court was consideringthe death of a commercial traveller who was riding on a road when hewas struck down by a falling tree which was blown down by a severegale then prevailing in the locality. Commenting on that proposition,Lawrence L.J., said in FI olden v. Premier Waterproof <& Rubber CompanyLim ited3 :—
“ What is meant by a dangerous spot in this connection is a spotwhich owing to its locality is in fact inherently dangerous althoughthe danger may be a lurking danger and not known to any one, suchas a wall with a bad foundation which may collapse—a tree uhichmay fall; it does not mean that because the accident happened ata particular spot, and because the workman did in fact incur dangerat that spot, that therefore it was dangerous spot within the fourthproposition ”.
I do not think that the applicant is entitled to claim the benefit oi thatproposition.
I dismiss the appeal. I make no order as to costs.
Appeal dismissed.