IN 1961, Bookers Demerara Sugar Estates Ltd opposed an order of a magistrate to pay workmen’s compensation to the dependant of Durga Ramnarine, a mule boy who was run over and killed by a tractor while sleeping on a dam. But the Full Court of the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal by the Sugar Estates after finding that the accident had stemmed from and occurred in the course of his employment with the appellant.

The facts of the case disclosed that Ramnarine was employed by the appellants, Bookers, as a mule boy to lead mules to places on their plantation where punts were to be loaded with canes.  On reaching those places, the  mule boys had to wait until the punts were loaded.

During the intervals, the mules would be unharnessed and sent out to graze and the mule boys would wait on the dam alongside while the punts were being loaded.

It was usual for the 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.  While lying on the dam awaiting the completion  of the loading of his punts,  Durga Ramnaraine was run over by a tractor  and  subsequently died from the injuries he received.

The Full Court  held that:  (i)   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;

(ii)  The question is not one of degree, but of kind; not of degree  of carelessness or rashness  which the workman exhibits  in doing his work, but whether he is doing his work at all;

(iii)   The onus  of proving that the workman  has placed himself within the principle of  “added peril” is upon the employer;

(iv)  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 and does not place himself within the principle  of “added peril”; and

(v)   The accident to Durga Ramnarine arose out of and in the course of his employment with the appellants.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Full Court was constituted  by Chief Justice J A Luckhoo and Justice Sydney Miller.

Senior Counsel,  Mr SDS Hardyal represented the appellants, while Mr DC  Jagan and Mr R Marques appeared for the respondent.

Delivering  the judgment  of the court, Justice Luckhoo noted that this was an appeal by the  appellant company  against the decision of a magistrate of the Berbice  Judicial District awarding  the respondent, Jhondia, the sum of  $900 compensation in respect of the death  of her grandson, Durga Ramnaraine, on October 12,  1959, as a result of an accident  to the said Durga Ramnaraine arising out of and in the course of his employment as a mule boy  at  Plantation Rose Hall, Canje, Berbice.

According to the CJ, the deceased was employed by the company to lead mules to places on their plantation where punts were to be loaded with canes. While the canes are being put on the punts, the harness is taken off the mules which are then 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 which 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 then hitched.  The mules then pull the punts to the factory.

On October12, 1959, the deceased was working as a mule boy under orders from mule boss, Nabbie.   He took his mule aback, and at about midday, it was allowed to graze, awaiting the loading of he punts.  The decease was required to wait about the dam until the punts were loaded.  The deceased was last seen alive by Nabbie  at about 2pm.   At about 3pm,  while  still waiting for 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 of about 16 to 18 rods.  It was then, he said, that it was discovered that the tractor had run over the deceased who, apparently, had been lying on the dam. The deceased’s  right foot  was bleeding  and appeared to be broken.  He 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 on a clear spot on the dam near to some bushes.

Justice Luckhoo noted that the grounds of appeal  filed and argued  by counsel for the appellant  company  were as follows:
 
(i)    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; and (c) The respondent  was not a dependant on her own admission.
(ii)    The decision was unreasonable  and could not be supported,  having regard to the evidence.

Continuing with his summation, Justice Luckhoo said that apart  from the fact  that the answer filed by the appellant  company setting  out the  grounds  on which they intended  to oppose the respondent’s application  for compensation did not specify as one of those grounds  that the death of the deceased had not resulted  from the injuries  sustained in the accident, there was sufficient evidence on the record  from which the cause of death  may be inferred.

As he observed: “A mule boy is still doing his job if he rests on the dam while awaiting the completion of the loading of his punts.  He may stand, he nay 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.”

In applying those principles to the facts of the present case, he said, “it seems clear that the accident to the deceased arose out of in the course of his employment with the appellant company as a mule boy,” and as such, “the grounds of appeal argued are, in our opinion, all without merit.”

The appeal was dismissed and the order of the magistrate affirmed.