Rossiter v Commissioners of Port of Waterford

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 01 January 1920
• Date: 01 January 1920
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ireland)

Rossiter v. Waterford Harbour Commrs.

MARGARET ROSSITER

Applicant

COMMISSIONERS OF THE PORT OF WATERFORD, Respondents (1)

Appeal.

Workmen's Compensation - Selection of dangerous route - Alternative and safe route available - Workmen fatally injured - Accident arising out of and in course of employment - Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906 (6 Edw. 7,c. 58), sect. 1, sub-s. 1.

A mate employed on a dredger had to shift about from side to side for the purpose of performing his duties. He elected to cross the vessel by an obviously dangerous, but not prohibited, route, although an alternative and comparatively safe way was available. He was caught between platform and mast, and sustained injuries which resulted in his death.

Held, that the accident arose out of and in the course of the employment.

There is a distinction between the case of a workman who, whilst actually engaged in the work of his employer, resorts to a dangerous route or method, and that of a workman who, though still under his contract of service, acts similarly for his own convenience or advantage.

Appeal from an order of the acting County Court Judge of Waterford (Mr. A. F. Blood K.C.) dismissing the application of Margaret Rossiter, the appellant, for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act.

The appellant was the widow of Thomas Rossiter, killed on June 16th, 1919, in the course of his employment on a dredger belonging to the defendants. Rossiter was mate on board the dredger which was engaged in dredging the river near Waterford. The dredger was kept in position by ropes and an anchor. Rossiter's duties were to shift the dredger every ten minutes or quarter of an hour. His duty took him to all parts of the ship.

The evidence of the captain of the dredger describing the accident was as follows: "On the 16th June I was dredging and delivering the stuff into a barge alongside, and used forward crane from dredger for discharging into barge. The crane took half a circle when discharging into barge, i.e., it was carried from port to starboard. Rossiter would report to me when barge was full, and barge was on starboard side. Rossiter's position

was on port side, but he would require to shift about from side to side in the performance of his duties. Three minutes before accident I saw Rossiter on port side attending to his duties. When I next saw him he was lying on the deck. The forward crane was then fore and aft, i.e., hanging over vessel." In cross-examination the witness said: "The forward crane works on a pivot, and consists of jib, over which the bucket-chain works, and a platform on deck; the platform moving as crane slews round and in front of platform (looking forward); there is a mast (the only one); when crane is fore and aft, platform comes close against mast, but if slew of crane be to port or starboard, the space between mast and platform is six feet. It is a dangerous operation to cross between mast and platform when crane is working. I have warned men not to cross. I warned Rossiter not to cross between platform and mast when crane working, the danger being that men might be caught between mast and platform when crane returning from slew to fore and aft position...