Weaver v Tredegar Iron and Coal Company Ltd

“There can be no doubt that the course of employment cannot be limited to the time or place of the specific work which the workman is employed to do … There may be some reasonable extension in both time and space”.¹

In early March 1938, Wilfred Weaver was seriously injured when he was caught up in a crush of fellow workers as he attempted to board a train to leave work for the day. This case considered the contentious question of whether the accident occurred ‘in the course of’ Wilfred’s employment, such that he could receive workers’ compensation for his injuries. 

The Sirhowy Railway

Wilfred Weaver was employed by the Tredegar Iron and Coal Company as a collier’s helper. He worked at the Pochin Colliery, located near Tredegar in Wales. The Colliery abutted the Sirhowy Railway—a branch of the London, Midland and Scottish Railway (LMS)—which operated from 1805–1960.² At the time, the LMS was the largest of the ‘Big Four’ railway companies which operated in the United Kingdom.³ The Sirhowy Railway conveyed iron from the town of Tredegar to the much larger city of Newport, with the railway originally operated by horse traction.⁴ A locomotive service was implemented in 1829,⁵ and the Pochin Pits Colliery Platform Railway Station served the colliery from 1893–1960.⁶ While the railway station was originally open to the general public, from 1922 it operated only as a private station for miners at the Pochin Colliery.⁷ The Tredegar Iron and Coal Company made arrangements with the railway company for the provision of the train and issued workers with a daily return ticket, the cost of which was deducted from their wages. While there was no contractual obligation placed upon workers to travel to or from work via the train, practically all workers chose to do so.⁸

Platform Crush at the Colliery Railway Station

On 3 March 1938, the Pochin Pits Colliery Platform Railway Station was extremely crowded. Wilfred Weaver had finished his shift at the colliery and was among the workers waiting on the railway platform to be carried home by train.⁹ As the train pulled into the station, Wilfred was caught up in a crush of workers on the crowded platform. In the chaos of the moment, Wilfred was pushed off the platform and his left arm became caught between two of the train’s carriages. Unfortunately, his arm subsequently had to be amputated above the elbow.¹⁰

Wilfred brought a claim for workers’ compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act 1925 (UK). Workers’ compensation usually takes the form of a no-fault statutory insurance scheme. For Wilfred, this meant that he did not have to prove any fault on the part of the Tredegar Iron and Coal Company. Rather, he could focus on establishing the required connection between his injury and employment. This required him to prove that his injury arose ‘out of and in the course of’ his employment with the Tredegar Iron and Coal Company. 

‘In the Course of Employment’: A Temporal Conundrum

Wilfred’s case turned on the ‘ever-recurring problem’ of the true construction of the words ‘out of and in the course of the employment’.¹¹ It has been suggested that these words may have given rise to more litigation than any other words in the English language.¹² Whereas the ‘out of employment’ test can be satisfied by establishing a causal connection between work and injury, the ‘in the course of’ employment test requires a temporal link.¹³ Importantly, under the Workmen’s Compensation Act 1925 (UK), this was a conjunctive test.¹⁴ In other words, both a causal and temporal connection to employment needed to be established.¹⁵

It was the required temporal connection that provided the focus of Wilfred’s case,¹⁶ with the Court required to determine whether Wilfred was still ‘in the course of’ his employment when he was injured, despite having finished his shift and having left the coal mine. It was accepted that if Wilfred’s injury arose ‘in the course of’ his employment, it could not have been disputed that it also arose ‘out of’ his employment, with the peril created by Wilfred’s fellow workers hustling into the train clearly caused by his employment.¹⁷

At first instance, the Tredegar County Court found in favour of Wilfred’s employer, holding that the accident did not arise ‘in the course of’ Wilfred’s employment. The Court of Appeal affirmed this decision and Wilfred appealed to the House of Lords. 

When the case came before what was, at the time, the United Kingdom’s final court of appeal, Viscount Maugham agreed with the courts below. According to Viscount Maugham, the earlier case of St Helens Colliery Co Ltd v Hewitson¹⁸ laid down the test to be applied in cases where a worker sustains an injury while travelling to or from their place of employment.¹⁹ In that case, a worker, also employed at a colliery, was injured in a railway accident while travelling home in a special colliers’ train. The House of Lords held that ‘the course of employment’ did not extend to injuries sustained while travelling home on the train, in circumstances where there was no obligation or necessity for workers to travel via the train.²⁰ On the authority of Hewitson’s case, Viscount Maugham concluded that as there was no duty or proved necessity for Wilfred to travel via the provided train, the accident did not, therefore, arise ‘out of and in the course of’ his employment. While Wilfred, in contrast to the worker in Hewitson, was injured on the station platform rather than on the train, Viscount Maugham opined that this made little difference as regardless of whether Wilfred was on the platform or on the train, he was not under the control of the Tredegar Iron and Coal Company, and was not doing something in performance of any duty to his employer.²¹

Fortunately for Wilfred, the other Law Lords felt differently. According to Lords Atkin, Wright, Romer, and Porter, Wilfred had not yet left the scene of his labour. Lord Atkin emphasised that there must be some ‘reasonable extension’ of ‘the course of employment’ beyond the workplace and working hours:  

 “There can be no doubt that the course of employment cannot be limited to the time or place of the specific work which the workman is employed to do. It does not necessarily end when the “down tools” signal is given, or when the actual workshop where he is working is left. In other words, the employment may run on its course by its own momentum beyond the actual stopping-place. There may be some reasonable extension in both time and space."²²

According to Lord Atkin, it was reasonable to extend ‘the course of employment’ to time spent on the railway platform. This was because ‘[i]t was the duty of the workmen in the old shift to leave their employment for the day, and it was essential, in the interests of the employers, to facilitate this process.’²³ Importantly, this process of leaving the employment was not completed until the train had been boarded.²⁴ Lord Atkin distinguished the decision in Hewitson on the basis that the worker in that case had already left his employment because he had stepped foot on the train.²⁵

The other Law Lords agreed with Lord Atkin that Wilfred’s injury arose ‘in the course of’ his employment. According to Lord Romer, a worker’s employment ‘ceases when he reaches a place to which the public have a right of access’ as ‘[f]rom that moment, he loses his identity as a workman, and becomes one of the general public.’²⁶ While Wilfred was on the private railway platform, however, ‘[h]e had not become an ordinary member of the public, and had not disentangled himself from his employment’. Support for this proposition was found in the fact Wilfred remained surrounded by his fellow workers and ‘the risk of being knocked off by the jostling crowd was a risk still incidental to his employment.’²⁷

Death on the Rails at the Pochin Colliery

Wilfred Weaver’s case was not the first to consider ‘the course of employment’ in the context of a railway injury sustained at the Pochin Colliery. 26 years prior to the House of Lords’ decision, the Court of Appeal in Walton v Tredegar Iron and Coal Co (1913)²⁸ had considered the case of William Walton—a collier at the Pochin Colliery—who, after finishing his shift, attempted to board the colliers’ train while it was still in motion. William fell under the train and was run over and killed. In an action for compensation brought by William’s widow, the Court of Appeal was satisfied that William’s injury arose ‘out of and in the course of’ his employment. This case was cited with approval by Lord Porter in finding in favour of Wilfred Weaver.²⁹

Unfortunately, injuries at the Pochin Pits Colliery Platform Railway Station were not limited to those sustained by Wilfred Weaver and William Walton. Other reported incidents included the case of 19-year-old Benjamin Williams who was killed in 1899 when he attempted to alight from the colliers’ train while it was still in motion.³⁰ Just four months later, another worker, Thomas R Thomas, was killed when he tried to board a train departing the Pochin Colliery. The train was, once again, still in motion at the time, and Thomas fell between the train and the tracks, was run over, and had both of his legs amputated. He died from the shock of the accident two hours later.³¹

Where Employment Begins and Ends: Recognising the Value of Labour

While Wilfred Weaver’s case was certainly not the first to consider the meaning of the phrase ‘in the course of employment’, the House of Lords’ decision is significant in its recognition that this temporal test cannot be limited to the strict confines of a worker’s hours of work or actual workplace. Indeed, the courts have repeatedly recognised the remedial character of workers’ compensation legislation, which requires a beneficial interpretation in favour of injured workers where possible.³²

In contrast to the common law, the availability of workers’ compensation can allow injured workers to avoid costly, uncertain, and lengthy litigation.³³ Not only is the common law an inefficient and inequitable mechanism for providing compensation for personal injury,³⁴ but the need to establish fault as part of a successful negligence action can be a further significant obstacle for injured workers. Fortunately for Wilfred Weaver, a broad interpretation of the required connection between work and injury allowed him to succeed in his workers’ compensation claim. While the determination of when employment begins and ends can be a challenging task, the House of Lords recognised the value of Wilfred’s labour and the significant hurdles he would have otherwise had to overcome to receive compensation for the very serious injuries he sustained at the Pochin Pits Colliery Platform Railway Station.