taken by permission on employers' premises-Worker injured while opening bottle - Workers' Compensation Act 1926-1942 (N.S.W.) (No. 15 of 1926-No. 13 SYDNEY,

of 1942), S, 6 (1). April 3;

While, with the knowledge and encouragement of his employers, a worker May 4.

was having his midday meal in the workshop where he was employed, he Latham C.J.,

experienced difficulty in removing the crown seal from a bottle of non-intoxicat- ing beverage which he proposed to drink as part of his meal and which, in accordance with the practice at the workshop, had been purchased and brought in for him by a fellow employee. The worker took the bottle to a vice in the workshop and opened it by holding the edge of the crown seal in contact with the vice and hitting down on the seal with his clenched fist. In conse- quence something flat flew from the bottle, apparently the crown seal, hit him in the left eye and caused injury which resulted in the removal of the eye,

Held, by Rich, Starke, McTiernan and Williams JJ. (Latham C.J. dissenting), that there was evidence on which the Workers' Compensation Commission (N.S.W.) could find that the injury to the worker arose "in the course of employment " within the meaning of S. 6 of the Workers' Compensation Act 1926-1942 (N.S.W.).

Decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales (Full Court): Davidson V. Mould, (1943) 44 S.R. (N.S.W.) 113; 61 W.N. (N.S.W.) 117, by majority,

APPEAL from the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

In a claim brought by him under the Workers' Compensation Act 1926-1942 (N.S.W.), Maxwell Walter Mould, aged sixteen years, by

69 CLR 97

his next friend William Edward Mould, claimed from his employers, George Davidson and Sidney Smith, trading as Davidson &Smith, £375 lump sum compensation under S. 16 of the Act for the loss of his left eye, plus £8 11s. for hospital expenses and £2 10s. for an artificial eye.

Liability under the Act was denied by the employers on the grounds that the worker " did not receive personal injury arising out of or in the course of his employment" with them, and was "not incapacitated for work in consequence of such personal injury."

The Workers' Compensation Commission found the following facts -The employers carry on the business of manufacturing saddlers in Sydney. The worker was employed by the employers in such business, his duties being those of a saddler. On Tuesday, 1st September 1942, (i) the worker was having his midday meal in the employers' workshop, which was his place of employment (ii) the worker experienced some difficulty in removing the crown seal from a bottle of non-intoxicating beverage. He walked across the workshop to a vice, held the side of the metal seal in contact with the vice, and with a clenched fist hit down on the…

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 Davidson v Mould

Details

AGLC: Davidson v Mould [1944] HCA 10
Case: [1944] HCA 10
Decision Date: 4 May 1944

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case concerned an appeal to the High Court of Australia from a decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The appeal arose from a claim for workers' compensation by Maxwell Walter Mould, a young employee, against his employers, George Davidson and Sidney Smith, trading as Davidson & Smith. Mould sought compensation for the loss of his left eye, which he sustained while having his midday meal in the employers' workshop. The employers denied liability, arguing that the injury did not arise out of or in the course of Mould's employment.

The legal issue before the High Court was whether there was sufficient evidence to support the Workers' Compensation Commission's finding that Mould's injury arose "in the course of employment" within the meaning of the Workers' Compensation Act 1926-1942 (N.S.W.). Mould was injured when, experiencing difficulty opening a bottle of non-intoxicating beverage purchased for his meal, he used a vice in the workshop and struck the crown seal with his fist, causing a piece to fly off and strike him in the eye. The Commission had found that the injury was received during the midday meal interval, which was permitted to be taken on the employers' premises, and that the act of opening the bottle was a reasonable act incidental to partaking in the meal, thus not constituting a break in the course of employment.

A majority of the High Court, comprising Rich, Starke, McTiernan, and Williams JJ., held that there was evidence upon which the Workers' Compensation Commission could find that the injury arose "in the course of employment." Latham C.J., dissenting, took the view that while Mould was permitted to be on the premises during his meal break, the specific act of opening the bottle in the manner he did was not sufficiently connected to his employment to be considered incidental to it. The majority, however, considered that the worker's presence on the premises during the meal break was due to the conditions of employment, encouraged by the employers, and that the act of opening the bottle was a reasonable incident of taking the meal in that permitted location. The Court ultimately affirmed the Supreme Court's decision that there was evidence to support the Commission's finding.

Orders