Arising Out of and In the Course of Employment
1. In the Course of Employment
Definition:
“In the course of employment” refers to acts or events that occur while the employee is performing duties assigned by the employer, or is engaged in activities authorized by the employment, whether at the workplace or elsewhere.
Key Principles:
The act must be connected with the employment.
The employee must be doing the work authorized or reasonably incidental to the employment.
Acts outside the scope of employment (frolic, personal errands) generally do not qualify.
Illustrative Cases:
a) Beard v London General Omnibus Co. (1900)
Facts: A conductor of a bus was drunk while performing his duties, leading to an accident.
Held: The act of being drunk was during the course of employment, but not authorized; the employer could still be liable depending on the connection with duties.
Significance: Acts need to be connected to employment, even if negligent or unauthorized.
b) Deen v. Inland Revenue (1958)
Facts: An employee traveling to work had an accident.
Held: Travel to and from work is generally outside the course of employment, unless travel is part of the duties.
c) Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd (1947) – for general principle
Courts recognize acts incidental to employment can sometimes be considered in the course of employment.
2. Arising Out of Employment
Definition:
“Arising out of employment” focuses on the cause or origin of the injury, meaning the injury must have a causal connection to the employment.
It is not enough that the injury happened at work; it must result from the nature, conditions, or incidents of employment.
Key Principles:
The employment must be the proximate cause of injury.
Injuries purely due to personal reasons unrelated to employment do not qualify.
Physical or risk factors inherent in employment may make the injury compensable.
Illustrative Cases:
a) Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd (2001)
Facts: An employee committed acts of abuse on children while at work.
Held: Employers were liable because the acts arose out of employment, as there was a sufficient connection between duties and wrongful acts.
b) Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (India) – Section 3
Injuries must arise out of and in the course of employment to claim compensation.
Example: An accident while operating machinery arises out of employment, even if occurring briefly away from the workstation.
c) Director of Insurance v. Rao (1956) – Indian case
Facts: A worker injured while performing his duty at an authorized location.
Held: Injury compensated because it arose out of employment and occurred in the course of employment.
3. Distinction Between the Two
| Aspect | In the Course of Employment | Arising Out of Employment |
|---|---|---|
| Focus | When and where the injury occurs | Why or how the injury occurs |
| Requirement | Injury occurs during authorized duties | Injury has causal connection to employment |
| Example | Slipping on office stairs while delivering documents | Injury from machinery while performing assigned work |
| Legal Test | Time, place, duty connection | Proximate cause or origin of injury |
Example for Both:
A factory worker operating a machine slips and injures his hand.
In the course: He was performing his assigned duty in the factory.
Arising out of: The injury was caused by operating the machine, part of his employment.
Summary:
In the Course of Employment: Focuses on time, place, and activity—whether the injury happened while performing duties.
Arising Out of Employment: Focuses on causal connection—whether the injury originated from employment risks.
Both conditions must usually be satisfied for workmen’s compensation or employer liability claims.
RELATED Blog
0 comments