Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Reference Cases (Mckannon Case) : Employer's Liability To Pay Compensation Under ECA, 1923

    Uploaded by

    Haley Hopper
    25 views1 page
    The document discusses the legal concept of "added peril" in employer liability cases. It provides examples from case law where employees took risks or actions outside the ordinary scope of their employment, such as going on deck when their job did not require it or suffering from an illness. The conclusion is that if the facts presented allow for conflicting interpretations of equal probability, the applicant fails to prove their case, but if the applicant's conclusion is more probable based on a reasonable person standard, then the arbitrator is justified in ruling in their favor.

    Original Description:

    Refrence cases in ECA 1923

    Original Title

    Ref Cases Mckannon

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The document discusses the legal concept of "added peril" in employer liability cases. It provides examples from case law where employees took risks or actions outside the ordinary scope of their employment, such as going on deck when their job did not require it or suffering from an illness. The conclusion is that if the facts presented allow for conflicting interpretations of equal probability, the applicant fails to prove their case, but if the applicant's conclusion is more probable based on a reasonable person standard, then the arbitrator is justified in ruling in their favor.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    25 views1 page

    Reference Cases (Mckannon Case) : Employer's Liability To Pay Compensation Under ECA, 1923

    Uploaded by

    Haley Hopper
    The document discusses the legal concept of "added peril" in employer liability cases. It provides examples from case law where employees took risks or actions outside the ordinary scope of their employment, such as going on deck when their job did not require it or suffering from an illness. The conclusion is that if the facts presented allow for conflicting interpretations of equal probability, the applicant fails to prove their case, but if the applicant's conclusion is more probable based on a reasonable person standard, then the arbitrator is justified in ruling in their favor.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    ADDED PERIL; Doing something that is not ordinarily called

    for; extra
    danger; MCKANNON
    master not liableCASE)
    REFERENCE
    CASES(

    Lancaster v. Blackwell Colliery Co. Ltd.

    Bender v. Owners of S.S. "Zent || Marshall v. Owners of


    S.S. "Wild Rose

    Job of the person(cook/engineer) does not require coming


    onto deck; maybe larking/suicide

    Rice v. Owner of Ship "Swansea Vale

    If the facts which are proved give rise to conflicting


    inferences of equal degrees of probability so that the choice
    between them is a mere matter of conjecture, then, of
    course, the applicant fails to prove his case
    CONCLUSION OF A REASONABLE MAN; more probable
    conclusion is that for which the applicant contends, then the
    Arbitrator is justified in drawing an inference in his favour.

    Strictly a seaman ; Duty was to work on deck ; Vanished in


    broad daylight
    Evidence that was suffering from giddiness -> Arising in the
    course and out of employment

    Employers Liability to Pay Compensation Under


    ECA, 1923

    You might also like