Machin Estate v. Stages and Darlington Insulation Co., (1989) 101 N.R. 208 (HL)

• Case Date: February 23, 1989
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1989), 101 N.R. 208 (HL)

Machin Estate v. Stages (1989), 101 N.R. 208 (HL)

MLB headnote and full text

Mary Smith, Widow and Administratrix of the Estate of Ronald George Machin (deceased) (respondent) v. George Stages and Darlington Insulation Company Limited (appellants)

Indexed As: Machin Estate v. Stages and Darlington Insulation Co.

House of Lords

London, England

Lord Keith of Kinkel, Lord Brandon of Oakbrook, Lord Griffiths, Lord Goff of Chieveley and Lord Lowry

February 23, 1989.

Summary:

Two employees (Machin and Stages) working at one power station were required to work temporarily at another power station. The employees were free to travel any way they pleased and were paid wages for the trip there and the return trip. The employees travelled in Stages' automobile, did their work and returned a week later. Both were seriously injured on the return trip in an accident caused by Stages' negligence. The issue before the House of Lords was whether the employer was vicariously liable to Machin for Stages' negligence.

The House of Lords affirmed that the employer was vicariously liable, because Stages was acting in the course of his employment at the time of the accident.

Master and Servant - Topic 3679

Liability of employer for acts of employee - Torts - Acts in course of employment - Two employees (Machin and Stages) working at one power station were required to work temporarily at another power station - The employees were free to travel any way they pleased and were paid wages for the trip there and back - The employees travelled in Stages' automobile, completed their work and returned a week later - Both were seriously injured on the return trip in an accident caused by Stages' negligence - The House of Lords affirmed that Stages was acting in the course of his employment at the time of the accident, therefore the employer was vicariously liable.

Master and Servant - Topic 3679

Liability of employer for acts of employee - Torts - Acts in course of employment - The House of Lords stated that "an employee travelling from his ordinary residence to his regular place of work, whatever the means of transport and even if it is provided by the employer, is not on duty and is not acting in the course of his employment, but, if he is obliged by his contract of service to use the employer's transport, he will normally, in the absence of an express condition to the contrary, be regarded as acting in the course of his employment while doing so" - See paragraph 66.

Master and Servant - Topic 3679

Liability of employer for acts of employee - Torts - Acts in course of employment - The House of Lords stated that "travelling in the employer's time between workplaces (one of which may be the regular workplace) or in the course of a peripatetic occupation, whether accompanied by goods or tools or simply in order to reach a succession of workplaces (as an inspector of gas meters might do), will be in the course of the employment" - See paragraph 66.

Master and Servant - Topic 3679

Liability of employer for acts of employee - Torts - Acts in course of employment - The House of Lords stated that "receipt of wages (though not receipt of a travelling allowance) will indicate that the employee is travelling in the employer's time and for his benefit and is acting in the course of his employment, and in such a case the fact that the employee may have discretion as to the mode and time of travelling will not take the journey out of the course of his employment" - See paragraph 66.

Master and Servant - Topic 3679

Liability of employer for acts of employee - Torts - Acts in course of employment - The House of Lords stated that "an employee travelling in the employer's time from his ordinary residence to a workplace other than his regular workplace or in the course of a peripatetic occupation or to the scene of an emergency (such as a fire, an accident or a mechanical breakdown of plant) will be acting in the course of his employment" - See paragraph 66.

Master and Servant - Topic 3679

Liability of employer for acts of employee - Torts - Acts in course of employment - The House of Lords stated that "a deviation from or interruption of a journey undertaken in the course of employment (unless the deviation or interruption is merely incidental to the journey) will for the time being (which may include an overnight interruption) take the employee out of the course of his employment" - See paragraph 66.

Cases Noticed:

Canadian Pacific Railway Co. v. Lock hart, [1942] A.C. 591, consd. [para. 9].

St. Helen's Colliery Co. Ltd. v. Hewitson, [1924] A.C. 59, consd. [para. 9].

Blee v. London and North Eastern Railway Co., [1938] A.C. 126, consd. [para. 11].

Nancollas v. Insurance Officer, [1985] 1 All E.R. 833, refd to. [para. 12].

Harvey v. R.G. O'Dell Ltd., [1958] 2 Q.B. 78, refd to. [para. 42].

Vandyke v. Fender, [1970] 2 Q.B. 292, agreed with [para. 42].

Weaver v. Tredegar Iron and Coal Co. Ltd., [1940] A.C. 955, refd to. [para. 42].

Nottingham v. Aldridge, [1971] 2 Q.B. 739, refd to. [para. 42].

Elleanor v. Cavendish Woodhouse Ltd., [1973] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 313, refd to. [para. 42].

Alderman v. Great Western Railway, [1937] A.C. 454, refd to. [para. 43].

Netherton v. Coles, [1945] All E.R. 227, refd to. [para. 55].

Reg. v. Industrial Injury Benefits Tribunal, Ex parte Fieldhouse (1974), 17 K.I.R. 63, refd to. [para. 59].

Barras v. Aberdeen Steam Trawling and Fishing Co., [1933] A.C. 402, refd to. [para. 60].

Counsel:

Piers Ashworth, Q.C., and Peter Bowers, for the appellants;

D.H. Stembridge, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard by Lord Keith of Kinkel, Lord Brandon of Oakbrook, Lord Griffiths, Lord Goff of Chieveley and Lord Lowry, of the House of Lords.

On February 23, 1989, the decision of the House of Lords was delivered and the following speeches were delivered:

Lord Keith of Kinkel - see paragraph 1;

Lord Brandon of Oakbrook - see paragraph 2;

Lord Griffiths - see paragraph 3;

Lord Goff of Chieveley - see paragraphs 4 to 18;

Lord Lowry - see paragraphs 19 to 69.