Noble v Southern Railway Company [1940] UKHL 1

A railway fireman was killed walking along a prohibited railway line route instead of the designated safe path whilst proceeding to his next work assignment. The House of Lords held that despite contravening employer's orders, the accident arose out of and in course of employment under Section 1(2) of the Workmen's Compensation Act 1925, entitling his widow to compensation.

Facts

Thomas Noble, a ‘passed fireman’ employed by the Southern Railway Company, was killed on 25th August 1938 when struck by an electric train. He had reported for duty at the locomotive depot at Norwood Junction around midnight and was instructed to proceed to East Croydon for piloting duties. To reach East Croydon, he needed to walk from the depot to Norwood Junction Station to catch a train.

The Company had specified a safe route of 1,002 yards via footpaths and public roads which was adequately lit. However, there was also a direct route of 841 yards along the railway lines which was extremely dangerous due to live rails, point rods, electric trains, and lack of lighting at night. Rule 15 of the Company’s blue book expressly prohibited employees from walking on the line except when required for duty or using a permitted route. A specific notice designated the approved route between the station and depot.

Noble chose the prohibited direct route along the railway lines and was struck from behind by an electric train at 12.14-12.15 am on a dark night, approximately 242 yards from the locomotive shed.

Issues

Principal Legal Questions

1. Whether the accident arose out of and in the course of Noble’s employment under Section 1(1) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act 1925.

2. If not, whether Section 1(2) of the Act applied to deem the accident as arising out of and in the course of employment, given that Noble was contravening his employer’s orders when killed.

3. Whether Noble was acting ‘for the purposes of and in connection with his employer’s trade or business’ as required by Section 1(2).

Judgment

The House of Lords unanimously allowed the appeal and held that the widow was entitled to compensation.

Viscount Maugham’s Analysis

Viscount Maugham set out a three-question framework for determining entitlement under Section 1(2):

“First, looking at the facts proved as a whole, including any regulations or orders affecting the workman, was the accident one which arose out of and in the course of his employment?”

“Secondly, if the first question is answered in the negative, is the negative answer due to the fact that when the accident happened the workman was acting in contravention of some regulation or order?”

“Thirdly, if the second question is answered in the affirmative, was the act which the workman was engaged in performing done by the workman for the purposes of and in connection with his employer’s trade or business?”

He concluded that the accident did not arise out of employment only because of the contravention of the route prohibition, and that Noble was walking along the line for his employer’s purposes – to catch the train to East Croydon for his piloting duties.

Lord Atkin’s Reasoning

Lord Atkin emphasised that when applying Section 1(2), one must ignore the prohibition and ask whether the workman was acting within the scope of employment. He stated:

“He was a fireman, he had reached his place of work, the engine shed, he had received orders to proceed to the station to catch a train which would take him to his working job, in obedience to the orders he was walking to the station: everything happened in regular course of employment except that he was proceeding by a route forbidden him by the prohibition.”

He affirmed that motive for disobeying a prohibition is irrelevant, stating:

“Few men disobey a prohibition except for the reason that they find it irksome, and that it is more convenient for them to disregard it. If motive in this sense negatived the condition, the section might as well never have been passed.”

Lord Wright’s Judgment

Lord Wright noted that the case was clearly governed by previous House of Lords authorities and that the decision in Clarke v Southern Railway Co. was manifestly inconsistent with those authorities. He observed:

“The test is objective and depends on the fact that his proceeding to the station was within the sphere of his employment.”

Lord Porter’s Analysis

Lord Porter emphasised the distinction between cases where contravention of orders takes an otherwise permissible act outside employment, and cases where the act is outside employment for other reasons. He rejected the argument that walking along the railway line was equivalent to taking on different duties, concluding the workman was engaged on his proper work, however recklessly performed.

Implications

This decision clarified the operation of Section 1(2) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act 1925, establishing that:

1. When determining if Section 1(2) applies, the prohibition must be disregarded to assess whether the act would otherwise be within the scope of employment.

2. A prohibited act can still be done ‘for the purposes of and in connection with’ the employer’s business – the prohibition does not automatically negate this requirement.

3. The ‘added peril’ doctrine has limited application and cannot defeat claims under Section 1(2) where the very purpose of the subsection is to provide compensation despite added risks from prohibited conduct.

4. The workman’s motive for disobeying a prohibition is irrelevant; what matters is the objective purpose of the act.

The case overruled Clarke v Southern Railway Co. (1927) and represented an important broadening of workers’ rights to compensation when injured whilst contravening employer’s orders but still engaged in work-related activity.

Verdict: Appeal allowed. The decision of the Court of Appeal was reversed and the award set aside. The case was remitted to the Arbitrator for the purpose of fixing the amount of compensation, unless the parties agreed. The widow was entitled to workmen’s compensation.

Source: Noble v Southern Railway Company [1940] UKHL 1