-sugar plantation ordered to pay compensation

BOOKERS Demerara Sugar Estates Limited appealed against a magistrate’s decision calling on the sugar plantation to pay $900 compensation for the death of a mule-boy who was killed by a tractor while waiting for punts to be loaded.

The Full Court constituted by Chief Justice Joseph Alexander Luckhoo and Justice Sydney Miller upheld the magistrate’s decision and concluded that in the present case whether the boy was standing, sitting, reclining or napping, so long as he was on the dam awaiting the conclusion of loading of the punts he was employed in the completion of loading of the punts, he was still in the course of his employment.
The facts of the case disclosed that the respondent’s grandson was employed by the appellants as a mule-boy on their sugar plantation.
His job was to lead mules to places alongside a dam where punts were to be loaded with canes. It was usual for mule- boys to sit or sleep on the dam while awaiting the completion of the loading of the punts, and there was no rule prohibiting this.
The mules would then pull the punts to the factory. The boy was last seen alive at 2 p.m while awaiting the completion of the loading.
At 3 p.m, while loading was still in progress it was discovered that a tractor had run over him, while he apparently was lying on the dam.
On appeal from a decision of the magistrate’s awarding compensation for the resulting death of the boy, it was argued for the appellants that if the boy went to sleep on the dam where tractors were likely to pass, he would place himself within the principle of “added peril.”
The Full Court held that : (i)Where the deceased is engaged in the employer’s work up to the time of his death and the last acts known about him are consistent with the continuance of that work, the burden is on those who allege a cessation of the work;
(ii) Where it is alleged that the deceased has been guilty of a breach of regulations or has placed himself within the principle of “added peril” the onus of proving this is upon the employer;
(iii) The question of “added peril” is not one of degree but of kind, not of degree of carelessness or rashness which the workman exhibited in doing his work, but whether he is doing his work at all;
(iv) In the present case whether the boy was standing, sitting, reclining or napping, so long as he was on the dam awaiting the completion of loading of the punts he was still in the course of his employment.

Appeal dismissed
D.D.S. Hardyal appeared for the appellants and D.C. Jagan along with R. G. Marques for the respondent.
Judgment of the Court:
“This is an appeal by the appellant company against the decision of the magistrate of the Berbice Judicial District awarding the respondent Jhondia the sum of $900 as compensation in respect of the death of her grandson, Durga Ramnarine, on October 12, 1959, as a result of an accident to the said Durga Ramnarine arising out of and in the course of his employment as a mule-boy at Plantation Rose Hall, Canje, Berbice.”
“The deceased was employed by the company to lead mules to on their plantation where punts were to be loaded with canes. While the canes are being put on to the punts, the harness is taken off the mules which are sent out to graze. The mule boys have to wait until the punts are loaded and during the interval they wait on the dam alongside where the punts are being loaded. After the punts are loaded the mules are rounded up and taken to the loaded punts to which they are hitched. The mules then pull the punts to the factory.”
“On the 12th of October, 1959 the deceased was working as a mule-boy under orders from mule boss Nabbie. He took his mule aback and about midday it was allowed to graze awaiting the loading of the punts.”
“The deceased was required to wait about the dam until the punts were loaded. The deceased was last seen alive by Nabbie at about 2 p.m. At about 3 p.m while still waiting on the punts to be loaded a motor tractor driven along the dam by one Dapanna came up to where Nabbie was sitting with one Seenauth. Seenauth got on to the tractor which was then driven off for a distance about 16 to 18 rods. Then it was discovered that the tractor had run over the deceased who apparently had been lying on the dam. The deceased right foot was bleeding and appeared to be broken.”
“The deceased was conveyed to the Public Hospital, Berbice, where he later died from the injuries he had received. The unrebutted evidence of Nabbie disclosed that it was usual for mule-boys to sit or sleep on the dam while awaiting the completion of the loading of the punts. There was no regulation or rule forbidding them to do so. According to Nabbie the deceased when injured, was lying in a clear spot on the dam near to some bushes.”
“The grounds of appeal filed and argued by counsel for the appellant were as follows:-

1.The decision was erroneous in point of law because –
(a) There was no evidence of cause of death;
(b)There was no evidence that the accident arose out of and in the course of employment;
(c)The respondent was not a dependent on her own admission.

2. The decision was unreasonable and could not be supported having regard to the evidence for the reasons given in para I (a), (b) and (c).
According to the judgment:
”The main ground of appeal; argued by counsel for the appellant company was that the deceased had placed himself within the principle of “added peril.”
“The burden of proof that the accident arose out of and in the course of employment of the deceased is on the applicant.” “Where the deceased is engaged in his employer’s work up to the time of his death, and the last acts known about him are consistent with the continuance of that work, the burden is on those who allege a cessation of the work.”
“Where it is alleged that the deceased has been guilty of a breach of regulations or has placed himself within the principle of “added peril” the onus of proving it is upon the employer.”
Referring to the law relating to the principle of “added peril” the Judgment added: “If a workman sustains an accident while he is doing an act which is within his sphere of employment the mere fact that he has acted negligently or failed to adopt the safest method of working will not deprive him of compensation. Where, however, whether from recklessness or for any other reason, a workman does something which is no part of his employment to do, and hereby incurs a risk to which he was neither required nor authorized to expose himself an accident so caused will not arise out of the employment.”
“In the present case a mule-boy is still doing his work if he rests on the dam while awaiting the completion of the loading of his punts, he may stand, he may sit, he may recline , he may take a nap, but so long as he remains on the dam he is still in the course of his employment.”
“Applying these principles to the facts of the present case it seems clear that the accident to the deceased arose out of and in the course of his employment with the appellant company as a mule-boy.”
“The grounds of appeal argued are in our opinion all without merit.”
“The appeal is dismissed and the order of the magistrate is affirmed. Appeal is dismissed.”

(By George Barclay)