Post
by Currie » Wed Dec 16, 2009 8:05 am
Hello All,
I had a look in the Glasgow Herald to see if there was anything additional about the accident to what was in the Bellshill Speaker. I didn’t have any luck there but did stumble across this article on Tuesday, April 10, 1900.
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION CASE.
Sometime ago an action was raised in the Sheriff Court at Airdrie at the instance of Hugh M’Diarmid or M’Dermont, Cleland, against the Calderbank Steel and Coal Company (Limited) for compensation on account of the death of his son resulting from injuries received while in the defenders' employment. Sheriff Mair has now issued the following interlocutor and note, which fully explain the case and the question of law involved therein:—
Airdrie, 4th April, 1900—Having heard parties' procurators and considered the cause, finds (1) that the applicant is the father of the deceased Hugh M’Diarmid or M’Dermont, junior, who was a workman in the employment of the defenders at No. 3 pit, Tannochside, on 1st August, 1898, and for about a month prior to that date; (2) that on said date the deceased while working at the face in the said pit was killed by a stone from the roof falling upon him; (3) that the average wage of the deceased at the time of his death was 30s per week; (4) that the deceased while employed at the said pit lived with his married sister, Mrs Brady, and paid her from his wages 11s per week for his board and lodgings; (5) that during said period he occasionally went to his father’s (the applicant’s) house on the Saturdays, and gave to him sums varying from 10s to 13s out of his wages; (6) that also during said period the average wage earned by the applicant as a miner was at least 20s a week, while it is proved that but for the policy of the miners resolving to work only five days a week he could have earned considerably more, and that since the 1st of August, 1898, the applicant and other miners are earning or capable of earning wages of at least 30s a week; (7) that the applicant is a married man, and lives in family with his wife and seven children, their ages respectively being 19, 17, 16, 14, 9, 9 (twins), and 7, that of these children three of them living in family with him were at the time of the death of the deceased, their brother, engaged in a brick-work at Auchinlea, earning wages amounting together to £1 10s 6d per week, which were given to the applicant, and that at the date of the proof a fourth girl was engaged at the same work earning a wage of 6s per week; (8) that taking together the wages earned by the applicant and those earned by the three eldest daughters at the brick-work, the income brought into the house per week was at least £2 10s 6d, while now it is more by the fourth daughter being employed at the said work; (9) that although the deceased occasionally gave to the applicant, his father, sums from his earnings while employed at Tannochside, these sums were really not of the nature of necessities for the support and maintenance of the applicant, but more from a filial regard for the greater comfort of his family; (10) that the applicant claims under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897, compensation as a dependant of the deceased at the time of his death. Finds with reference to the foregoing findings that the applicant, having regard to his class and position in life as a miner, was not in the sense of the Workmen's
Compensation Act a dependant of the deceased, his son, either wholly or partially; therefore refuses the application, but in the circumstances finds no expenses.
(Signed) WM. LUDOVIC MAIR.
Note.—The only question in this case is whether the applicant was a dependant of his deceased son in the sense of the Workmen's Compensation Act. The findings in the above interlocutor are amply supported by the proof which was led, the result of which is, I have found that the applicant was not in the sense of the Act dependent on his deceased son. In the case of Simmons v. Whyte Brothers, 1899, 1 Q.B., 1005, "held that in order to bring himself within the Act as a 'dependant' an applicant for compensation must show that he was to some extent dependent upon the earnings of the deceased workman for the ordinary necessaries of life, having regard to his class and position in life, it is insufficient that he merely derived pecuniary benefit from such earnings. Whether an applicant is in that sense a dependant is a question of fact in each particular case." The findings in the interlocutor speak for themselves. (Intd.) W. L. M.
Agent for Petitioner—Mr G. D. Shearer, solicitor, Airdrie.
Agent for Defenders—Mr W. Burns Shand, writer, Glasgow.
If you want the image Jane please send me an email address via a PM.
Hope that’s useful,
Alan
