Single Record

Full Details

Surname

DEVLIN

Forename

Peter

Day

25

Month

11

Year

1924

Age

Occupation

Pit Bottomer

Mine/Quarry Name

Garrallan Pit

Mineral Worked

Coal

Owner

Garrallan Coal Co.

Location

Cumnock

County

Ayrshire

Details of Event

25 November 1924: Scottish Pit Accident – Arbitrator Upheld – Court of Session Decision Reversed - The House of Lords yesterday unanimously allowed the appeal of the Garrallan Coal Company (Ltd.), Cumnock, against a judgment of the Second Division of the Court of Session, which by a majority reversed the decision of the arbitrator (Sheriff Substitute Broun) in an arbitration under the Workmen’s Compensation Acts on the application of Mrs Janet Anderson or Devlin, widow of Peter Devlin, Auchinleck. The deceased workman was employed by the appellants as a pit bottomer, and sustained injuries which caused his death through being crushed by a descending cage which came down upon him while he was in the uncovered space at the shaft bottom. Access to the latter place was the subject of one of the general regulations. The arbitrator found that there was no proof that Devin was in the uncovered space for the purpose of and in connection with the employers’ trade or business, and that the presumption was that he was not. In the Second Division; Lord Anderson and Lord Ormidale, who formed the majority, were of opinion that the opinion upon the question of fact was unsupported by any evidence. The Lord Justice Clerk dissented, holding that there was ample evidence to support the conclusion which the Judge of first instance had reached. The colliery company appealed to the House of Lords. Viscount Dunedin, in moving that the appeal should be allowed, said the onus of proving that Devlin’s presence in the uncovered space was in contemplation and furtherance of his employers’ business was on the respondent, and what their Lordships had to say was whether the conclusion arrived at by the arbitrator was a conclusion which an reasonable man could have come to on the facts. It was not for their lordships to say what conclusion they themselves would have come to. He found it impossible to say that the arbitrator had come to a conclusion which no reasonable man could reach, and therefore he thought the arbitrator’s decision ought not to have been interfered with. Lord Shaw, in concurring, remarked that the House said until it was tired of saying, that the greatest deference must be paid to the arbitrator. It was too late in the day to suggest, that their Lordships could confront the facts as if they were the judges of them. Lords Sumner, Wrenbury, and Blanesburgh concurred, and the appeal was allowed. [Scotsman 28 July 1928]