Seamen and mechanics getting on and off vessels provided by the owners of the ship. On returning to the ship he fell off a ladder, which was the only means of access from the quay to the ship and was drowned. It was held by the House of Lords that the accident arose out of and in the course of the man's employment and that therefore his widow was entitled to compensation. Moore v. Manchester Liners (1908), 3 B. W. C. C. 527, rev'g 1 K. B. 417; 2 B. W. C. C. 87. A seaman in returning to his ship passed over a gangway from the wharf, and had one foot on the rail of the ship and the other on a ladder leading from the rail to the deck, when he overbalanced and fell over the side of the ship and was drowned. It was held that the accident arose out of and in the course of the workman's employment. Canavan v. Owners of the Steamship "Universal" (1910), 3 B. W. C. C. 355. A steward of a steamship discharging at the port of Montreal, Canada, went on shore in the evening, as he was permitted to do. Returning late in the evening to his ship, as was alleged, in a state of intoxication or semiintoxication, he attempted to board the ship by using the cargo skid or stage, instead of the gangway. In doing so he slipped and fell and received injuries from the effect of which he died. It was held that the injury arose out of and in the course of the employment. Robertson v. Allan Brothers & Co. (1908), 98 L. T. 821; 1 B. W. C. C. 172. When a ship was lying in Glasgow harbor a seaman went ashore without leave and returned to his ship later in the evening in a state of intoxication. He went to his bunk and was found next morning lying injured at the bottom of the hold of the ship and from these injuries he subsequently died. There was no evidence as to how the man got to the place where he was injured. To reach the place it was necessary for him to pass through a door which was broken or forced open, by whom there was no evidence to show. It was held that there was no evidence that the accident arose out of the employment. O'Brien v. Star Line (1908), 45 Scotch L. R. 935; 1 B. W. C. C. 177. Seamen and mechanics getting on and off vessels A workman engaged upon a ship, working overtime, went ashore between 9:30 and 10 A. M. to buy some bread. He was told by the foreman not to go, and could previously, during the interval allowed for tea, have procured the bread. Upon his return, while attempting to jump from the quay to the ship, he fell and was killed. It was held that the accident did not arise out of and in the course of the employment. Martin v. Fullerton & Co. (1908), 45 Scotch L. R. 812; 1 B. W. C. C. 168. The second engineer of a steam trawler which was in dry dock at the time, went ashore to his home for dinner. As he returned to the ship he fell into a dry dock and was killed. It was held that the accident did not arise out of and in the course of the engineer's employment. Gilbert v. Owners of the "Nizam" (1910), 3 B. W. C. C. 455. In the last-mentioned case the court said: "I decline to assent to the view that a ship is in a different position from a factory for this purpose. This is a simple case where a man has been to his own home to get his dinner, and has met with an accident on his way back to the scene of his labors. That question has been raised and decided against the workman, not once, but again and again by this court." The captain of a vessel left his ship in Bangor Roads and went to a hotel a hundred yards away from the dock. He returned to the dock at about 11 P. M. and hailed his ship for a boat. He was not heard from for some time, but eventually a boat put off. Before the boat reached him he fell over the dock side and was drowned. The evidence was consistent with his going to the hotel for his own pleasure, or in the course of his employment. It was held that the dependents had not discharged the onus of proving that the accident arose out of and in the course of the employment. Hewitt and Others v. Owners of the Ship "Dutchess" (1910), 102 L. T. 204; 3 B. W. C. C. 239. See also Fletcher v. Owners of Steamship Duchess" (House of Lords) 1911, 4 B. W. C. C. 317. “A sailor left his ship and went for a week-end to his son's house, which was some considerable way down the river at Poplar. Seamen and mechanics getting on and off vessels He took his dinner and tea there and he slept there. On Monday morning he started to rejoin his vessel. On his way he slipped on some steps at the riverside and injured himself: We certainly cannot go the length of saying that this was an accident arising out of and in the course of this man's employment. The case would be exactly the same if he had slipped on the pavement in the street before he came to the steps. We have pointed out not once or twice but often that, save in certain exceptional circumstances, the Act does not extend to and protect the workman when on his way from his house to his employment. Still less does it protect him when out for his own pleasure for a week-end." Kelly v. Owners of the "Foam Queen" (1910), 3 B. W. C. C. 113. Where an employer gave to an employé a railway ticket and ordered him to report on board ship for work at 7 A. M., and while the workman was on his way to the ship he fell off the dock and was injured, which dock was not under the control of his employer, it was held that the giving of the railway ticket was merely a gratuitous concession by the employers and that it was in no way obligatory on the workman to go or return from his work by train as provided in the ticket, and that therefore the accident did not arise out of and in the course of the man's employment. Nolan v. Porter and Sons (1909), 2 B. W. C. C. 106. A steward on a steamship had gone ashore with leave. At about 10 P. M. he was passed onto the wharf by the doorkeeper who saw him make his way toward the ship. He was not seen boarding the gangway, nor was there any evidence that he ever reached it, but the watchman heard a splash in the water and a cry of "Man overboard." When the body was recovered life was extinct. It was held that the applicant for compensation had not discharged the onus of proving that the accident arose out of and in the course of the man's employment. Kitchenham v. Owners of S. S. "Johannesburg" (1910), 4 B. W. C. C. 91, affirmed by the House of Lords, 4 B. W. C. C. 311. Seamen and mechanics getting on and off vessels A sailor was seen about eight P. M. about to leave his ship, which was at a dock, to get provisions. Early next morning he was found drowned in the dock, ten or fifteen feet from the gangway of the ship and three feet from the side of the dock. His cap was found on the dock and there was a fresh wind blowing. It was held that the accident did not arise out of the employment and compensation was refused. Mitchell v. S. S. "Saxon" (1912), 5 B. W. C. C. 623. A seaman had been ashore with leave, for medical attendance. On his way back to the ship, he found that the small boat in which he had come ashore had been removed, and that there was nothing at the jetty except a 27-foot lifeboat, with a rudder, but no oars. It was a boat that should have been manned by six oarsmen. The ship was one hundred yards from the shore, and the wind was strong and squally. The wind and tide were running more or less in the direction in which the ship lay. The seaman attempted to get to the ship by going alone in the lifeboat, using the rudder as a paddle. He was blown out to sea and drowned. It was held, that the accident did not arise out of the employment. Halvorsen v. Salvesen (1911), 49 Sc. L. R. 27; 5 B. W. C. C. 519. A seaman who had been on shore returned to the dock hopelessly drunk. He was thrown, like a sack of sand, on the deck of the ship just as it was moving off. He fell on his hands and knees and shortly after staggered to his feet and rolled overboard and was drowned. It was held that the accident did not arise out of the employment, but was due entirely to his hopeless state of intoxication. Frith v. S. S. Louisianian" (1912), 5. B. W. C. C. 410. A seaman went ashore with leave for his own purposes. When he returned late at night he found that the ship had meanwhile been moved to another part of the dock. He proceeded to make his way to the ship along the dock side, which had many railway lines upon it. He was injured by a train on the docks, about 200 yards from his ship. It was Injury before work begins or after it ceases held that the accident did not arise out of the employment Biggart v. S. S. "Minne and compensation was refused. sota" (1911), 5 B. W. C. C. 68. A sailor, returning on board his ship after a trip on shore, not connected with his employment, fell into the water from steps leading from the gangway, of which they formed part, and was drowned. It was held that this was not an accident arising out of and in the course of the employment. Hyndman v. Craig & Co. (1910), 44 Irish L. T. 11; 4 B. W. C. C. 438. A seaman while returning on board ship from the shore, when the ship was lying in port, slipped on the gangway and fell over the gangway ropes, striking his head in falling, and received injuries which proved fatal. There was no evidence to show why the deceased had gone there, whether on the service of the ship or for his own purposes, or with or without permission. It was held that the evidence being equally consistent that the deceased was or was not on the ship's business, the applicant for compensation had not discharged the onus resting upon her of showing that the injury arose out of and in the course of the employment. McDonald v. Owners of Steamship "Banana" (1908), 1 B. W. C. C. 185. 4. Workmen injured on employer's premises before work begins, after work ceases, or during cessation of work.1 An employé is still in the course of his employment while coming to or going from the work, while he is upon the premises of the employer in the immediate vicinity of his labor. (E. L.) McGregor v. Auld, 83 Wis. 539; 53 N. W. Rep. 845; (E. L.) Olsen v. Andrews, 168 Mass. 261; 47 N. E. Rep. 90; (E. L.) Chicago R. I. & T. Ry. Co. v. Oldridge, 33 Texas Civ. Ap. 436; 76 S. W. Rep. 581. When an employé arrives at the place of work shortly before the regular time to begin work and is doing anything relating to the employment and 1 See two preceding numbered subdivisions. See also paragraph 16, post, page 475. |