Workmen's compensation: assault while on duty route can arise out of employment where the job creates proximate exposure to danger.

A workman's death by assault while proceeding to join duty was held to arise out of employment because the employment placed him at the spot and exposed him to a proximate special peril there. The court applied the requirement of causal connection under the Workmen's Compensation Act and found that the risk need not be one faced only by the employee, so long as it was not personal to him or created by his own act. It also held that the claimant discharged the burden of proof by showing that the deceased was at the relevant place because of his employment and that the accident occurred in that course; the employer had to prove any personal or self-created peril.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the deceased's death by assault while proceeding to join duty arose out of his employment within the meaning of the Workmen's Compensation Act. (ii) Whether the applicant had discharged the burden of proving that the accident arose out of the employment.

Issue (i): Whether the deceased's death by assault while proceeding to join duty arose out of his employment within the meaning of the Workmen's Compensation Act.

Analysis: A causal connection between the accident and the employment was required, and the connection had to be proximate. Where employment placed the workman at a particular place and, because of that employment, he was exposed to a special peril at that place, an accident caused by that peril arose out of the employment. The fact that the peril might also have faced others was not material, so long as the peril was not personal to the employee and was not created or enlarged by his own act. On the facts, the deceased was at the spot only because his employment required him to pass there to join duty, and he was assaulted there without any evidence of a personal risk brought about by him.

Conclusion: The death arose out of the deceased's employment.

Issue (ii): Whether the applicant had discharged the burden of proving that the accident arose out of the employment.

Analysis: Once the applicant proved that the deceased was at the relevant place because of his employment and that the accident occurred there in the course of that employment, the necessary burden under Section 3 was satisfied. The applicant was not required to prove additionally that the peril was shared by the public at large or that the assailant had no personal motive. If the employer wished to deny liability on the basis of a personal or self-created peril, that was a matter for the employer to establish. The Commissioner therefore erred in insisting on a heavier burden than the statute required.

Conclusion: The applicant had discharged the burden of proof.

Final Conclusion: The compensation claim succeeded, the Commissioner's order was set aside, and the respondent was directed to pay the claimed amount with costs.

Ratio Decidendi: Where employment places a workman in the zone of danger and the accident is proximately connected with that employment, the accident is treated as arising out of the employment, and the claimant is not required to prove a further absence of personal motive in the peril.

---