JAYETHJEKE J.—Rahim and Elisdhamy.
of or in the course 'of employment, within the meaning of section 3 of theWorkmen’s Compensation Ordinance. The legal position in this case issimilar to that in Perera v. Brown & Co.'. See also Armitage v.Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Co*.
The Commissioner has held that the motive of the fight as the result ofwhich the deceased was injured arose out of his employment. There is noevidence of any rivalry between the two omnibus companies in question.Even if there was rivalry there is no evidence that it involved any specialrisk, Evidence of a special risk incidental to the employment of thedeceased has to be led before the appellant can be made liable—Mitchinsonv. Day Brothers “; Weekes v. William Stead, Ltd.'.
J.M. Jayamanne (with him I. Misso), for the applicant, respondent.—The ruling in Mitchinson v. Day Brothers (supra) was not followed inMrs. Margaret Thom or. Simpson v. Sinclair The meaning of theexpression “ arising out of and in the course of employment ” is fullydealt with in Powell v. Great Western Railway". As long as the deceasedconductor was. in the omnibus and suffered injuries when he was there,the injuries must be held to have arisen out of the employment. Anaccidental injury sufficiently arises out of the employment if it befallsa man simply because of the place into which he is sent or taken by hisemployment. See Vol. 56 Law Quarterly Review 156 and DoverNavigation Co. Ltd. v. Craig7.
N. E. WeeraSooria, K.C., in reply.—The accident must not only be in thecourse of the employment but must also arise out of it. The assault inthe present case had no relation to the employment. Mrs. MargaretThom or Simpson v. Sinclair (supra) does not overrule or expresslydissent from Mitchinson v. Day Brothers (supra).
Cur. adv. vult.
September 16, 1943. Jayetileke J.—
The applicant claimed compensation under, the Workmen’s Compensa-tion Ordinance (Cap. 117) as a dependent of her son Babasingho, deceased,who, she alleged, died as a result of an injury by accident arising out ofand in the course of his employment. Babasingho was employed byMohideen & Company, of which the appellant was the proprietor, as aconductor of a motor omnibus which plied for hire between Anuradhapuraand Matale.
Mailt & Company also plied motor omnibuses for hire on the sameroute, and there appears to have been business rivalry between the twocompanies for some time.
Qn the day of the accident the omnibus in which Babasingho workedwas proceeding from Matale -to Anuradhapura when two omnibusesbelonging to Mant & Company obstructed it. The employees of Mant& Company then proceeded to attack the employees of the appellantand Babasingho received an injury which resulted in his death.
At the argument before ine it was not contested that the deathconstituted an injury which arose in the course of Babasingho’s employ-ment, but it was urged that it did not arise out of it within the meaning
1 (1940) 41 N. L. R. i>46.* (1914) 111 L. T. 693
* (1902) 86 L. T. 883.s L. R. (1917) A. 0.127:
3 (1913) 108 L. T. 193:‘ (1940) 1 All. E. R. 87.
» L. R. (1940) A. G. 190..
JAYETILEKE J.—Rahim and Elisahamy.
of section 3 of the Ordinance as there was no evidence of a special riskincidental to the employment. That section is identical with section 1of the English Act. Though the English Act was originally devisedso as to be understood by everyone and therefore presumably to dispensewith the need for any resort to lawyers, the decisions collected in Willis’Workmen’s Compensation Acts show that it has put more money intothe pockets of lawyers than any other piece of legislation. The conno-tation of the expression " arise out of the employment ” has been muchdebated in a number of decided cases in England.
In Upton v. Great Central Railway CompanyViscount Haldane said,at page 307, that the conditions necessary to enable it to be said that anaccidental injury arose out of the man’s employment must be “ such thatthe accident has some sort of causal relation with them, although notnecessarily an active physical connection ”.
In Lawrence v. Mathews, Limiteds, Russell L. J. said : —“ sufficientcausal relation or causal connection …. is established if theman’s employment brought him to the particular spot where the accidentoccurred and the spot in fact turns out to be a dangerous spot.”
The facts of the case of Powell v. Great Western Railway Companyseem to be similar to the facts of the present case. A fireman employedby a railway company, whilst carrying out his duties on his engine, washit by a pellet from an airgun deliberately aimed at the engine by a boyof nineteen years of age.
Slesser L.J. said:—“This man was required, as part of his employ-ment, to be on his engine. While on his engine, he was subjected to aparticular peril, in that a misguided youth aimed at the locality wherethis man was required to work. In my opinion, the problem in the casesof assault of whether the assault on the man arises out of some dangerwhich exist by reason of his employment, or whether it arises out of aquarrel which has no relation to the employment, does not arise here.This is a case of a man being, by reason of his work, brought into alocality which was dangerous, as in the case, for example, of certain shipsbeing required to go into a mine-infested area, or whether it becamedangerous after he got into a locality, by reason of somebody shootingat him, or dropping a bomb on the engine, or whatever it may be, mattersnothing. This man suffered this casualty in the course of his employ-ment, and it arose out of his employment, because he was at that place.”
Goddard L.J. said: —“ In this particular case the accident arose -because a boy shot an airgun deliberately at a locomotive engine on therailway, and, missing that somewhat large target, he hit the fireman ■standing in the cab of the engine. If he had not been there, he wouldnever have been injured. His service and duty required him'to be there.Therefore, I entirely fail to see how it can be argued that this accidentdid not arise out of his employment, quite apart from the question ofwhether or not trains are an allurement, to children. The deliberate act.which here caused the accident was the firing at the engine. Theaccident happened to the workman because the workman’s duty requiredhim to be on the engine.”
> {1924) A. C. 302.* {1929) 1R.B.1.3 (1940) 1 A. E. R. 87.
HEARNE J.—Denis and Warren.
The identical view has been taken by the House of Lords in DoverNavigation Company, Limited v. Craig Lord Wright said:—“Anaccidental injury sufficiently arises out of the employment if it befallsa man simply because of the place to which he is sent or taken by hisemployment.”
In my view the question before me is concluded by these decisionsand it is unnecessary to consider the decisions that were relied on byCounsel for the appellant. They have been dealt with in the passagequoted above from the judgment of Slesser L.J.
The accident to Babasingho arose, in my Opinion, out of his employment,because it occurred by reason of his employment bringing about hispresence at the particular' spot_at which he was injured.
I would dismiss the appeal with costs.
Appeal dismissed.