RESPONDENT, FORST Workers' CompensationAccident arising out of and in the course of employment-
Death of workman following exertion-Death due to coronary thrombosis- Conflict of medical evidence as to relation of death to employment--Workmen's ADELAIDE,
A waterside worker and winchman was engaged in discharging cargo from MELBOURNE,
a liner. He was a powerful and vigorous man, and, until his collapse, on the day of his death, he appeared to be in normal health. On that day, after performing two tasks which involved muscular exertion, he collapsed and shortly afterwards died. On an application by his widow for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act 1932-1935 (S.A.), the arbitrator, after hearing medical evidence which disclosed a conflict of opinion, found that the workman's death was due to coronary thrombosis, but that death from coronary thrombosis could not generally be related to exertion and therefore that the workman's death could not satisfactorily be said to have been caused by his exertion. He accordingly found that the death was not the result of injury by accident arising out of and in the course of the employment within the meaning of sec. 4 of the Act. On appeal the Supreme Court (which, under sec. 41 of the Act, had power to rehear the case and to decide questions of fact as well as of law) decided that, although the expert evidence was not conclusive, it showed that physical exertion was commonly, though not invariably, the inciting cause of coronary thrombosis, and that, having regard to the probabilities, the proper conclusion was that the workman's exertion was in fact the cause of it in this case. The court therefore set aside the finding of
the arbitrator and made an affirmative finding that the workman's death was H. C. OF the result of an injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment.
Held, by Rich A.C.J., Starke and McTiernan JJ. (Dixon J. dissenting), STEVEDOR- that on the evidence the finding of the Supreme Court was justified and should ING Co. LTD. not be disturbed.
Decision of the Supreme Court of South Australia (Full Court) affirmed.
APPEAL from the Supreme Court of South Australia.
Carl Heinrich Meyer Forst was employed as a workman (within the meaning of that term in the Workmen's Compensation Act 1932-1935 (S.A.) ) by the Adelaide Stevedoring Co. Ltd. He was a powerful man, weighing fifteen to sixteen stone, and was employed as a waterside worker and winchman. He was sixty-three years of age. On 4th June 1938 he was engaged in discharging cargo from the 8.8. Maloja. He started work at 8 a.m., and, throughout the day, until his death, which occurred shortly after 4 p.m., he appeared to be in normal health. About 4 p.m. the wire ran off one of the sheaves of the crane which he was operating. The crane was then at an angle of about…
Grounds of appeal
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading Adelaide Stevedoring Co Ltd v Forst
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Adelaide Stevedoring Co Ltd v Forst [1940] HCA 45
Case
[1940] HCA 45
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of *Adelaide Stevedoring Co Ltd v Forst* involved an appeal to the High Court of Australia concerning a claim for workers' compensation. The respondent, Mrs. Forst, sought compensation following the death of her husband, a waterside worker and winchman, who collapsed and died shortly after performing tasks involving significant physical exertion. The appellant, Adelaide Stevedoring Co Ltd, contested the claim.
The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the workman's death from coronary thrombosis was an injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, as defined by the *Workmen's Compensation Act 1932-1935* (S.A.). This required determining if the physical exertion undertaken by the deceased had a causal connection to his death.
The High Court, by a majority, affirmed the decision of the Supreme Court of South Australia. The court considered conflicting medical evidence regarding the relationship between physical exertion and coronary thrombosis. While the arbitrator had found that death from coronary thrombosis could not generally be related to exertion, the Supreme Court had concluded, based on the probabilities and the expert testimony, that the workman's exertion was the inciting cause of his coronary thrombosis. The High Court found this conclusion to be justified by the evidence, holding that the exertion was a material contributing factor to the death, thus satisfying the requirements of the Act.