Tennants (Lancashire) Ltd v CS Wilson & Co Ltd

Lorp Parmoor. My Lords, the appellant was a plumber's mate
in the employ of the respondents, who had works in Westminster.
In the course of his employment he was directed to go on a bicycle

493

H. L. (E.)
1917

—

DENNIS
v.
A. J. WHITE
AND
COMPANY.

Lord Parker of
Waddington.

494

H. L. (E.)
1917

eres
DENNIS

v.
A: J. WHITE
AND
COMPANY,

Lord Parmoor,

HOUSE OF LORDS [1917]

for a distance of a mile from the premises of the respondents in order
to get some plaster. While riding his bicycle in Sloane Square the
appellant's left leg was broken in a collision with a motor car. The
only question for debate in the appeal is whether the accident from
which the injury resulted arose out of the employment of the appel-
lant by the respondents. The county court judge found that the
respondents were not liable. This decision is not open to review
unless there has been error in law. The Court of Appeal have by
a majority upheld the award.

There is no dispute as to the material facts, and no evidence was
called on behalf of the respondents at the hearing in the county
court. It is not questioned that the accident arose in the perform-
ance of a duty which his employment imposed upon the appellant,
namely, in the riding of a bicycle through the streets of London.
If the learned county court judge has based his decision on an
inference of fact drawn adversely to the appellant, there is no evi-
dence which in reason could justify such a finding, and there is
error in law on which his decision is open to review. In my opinion
the decision of the county court judge is not based on any inference
of fact drawn adversely to the appellant, but on a construction of
the Act similar to that which has been adopted by the majority of
the Court of Appeal, but which, with all respect to that Court,
appears to me to be untenable.

If an accident has arisen because of something which it was the
duty of the appellant to do in the course of his employment, it is
not an answer to say that the same accident might have happened
to any other member of the public who was doing the same thing
under the same conditions. [ am unable to agree with the Master
of the Rolls that the accident did not arise out of the employment
because it was something which might happen to any member
of the public who was riding a bicycle in that way. This test
appears to me not to be material. If rigorously applied, it would
tend to defeat the purpose of the Act, since in numerous cases
a member of the public doing the same thing under the same
conditions as an injured workman might suffer injury in the same
manner. There is no trace of any such test in the language of
the Act.

I agree. in the conclusion of Sargant J., and do not think it

A.C, AND PRIVY COUNCIL.

necessary to repeat an opinion lately expressed in the case of Thom
v. Sinclar. (1) In my opinion the appeal should be allowed.

Order of the Court of Appeal reversed and judgment
entered for the appellant ; the amount of compen-
sation, if not agreed, to be assessed in the county
court. The respondents to pay the costs in the
Courts below and also the costs of the appeal to
this House, such last-mentioned costs to be taxed
in the manner usual when the appellant sues in
Jorma pauperis.

Lords' Journals, June 14, 1917.