374 



Compensation to Workmen. 



[sept., 



is not very clear, but the mere fact that the employment by 

 any person of agricultural labour is not continuous throughout 

 the year would not seem to exempt such person from liability 

 under the Act, and it is therefore prudent for any person 

 employing agricultural labour, whether casually or continuously, 

 to ensure against liability in respect of injuries to all persons 

 so employed by him. 



An inquiry* into the law relating to compensation for 

 injuries to workmen has recently been conducted by a Depart- 

 mental Committee appointed by the Home Office, and with 

 reference to the doubt which is felt as to the meaning of the 

 word " habitually," they observe that there has as yet been 

 no reported decision of the Court of Appeal on the subject. In 

 one County Court case the question arose whether the widow 

 of a workman who had been killed by falling off a load of hay 

 was entitled to compensation from a small farmer occupying 

 about 20 acres of grass land, and employing no labour except 

 at hay-harvest, when he engaged three or four men for about 

 three weeks. It was held by the County Court Judge that 

 the farmer was exempted from liability. The indefiniteness 

 and uncertainty attending the word " habitually " was pressed 

 upon the Committee, and they think it would be very desirable 

 to adopt some more exact definition if the test of the amount 

 of labour employed is to be retained. 



Evidence was also put before them as to the financial 

 position of a small farmer, and the possible ruin that might 

 be entailed upon him in the event of a serious accident 

 happening to a labourer employed by him. The liabilities 

 imposed by the Act, have, they point out, been explained in 

 Leaflet 61 issued by this Department, but it is to be feared 

 that they are imperfectly appreciated by large numbers of 

 small employers, and that the precaution of insurance is much 

 neglected. The Committee think, therefore, that it is desirable 

 to find some means of excluding the small employer from 

 the operation of the Act, and in recommending an amendment 

 of the wording of the Act they suggest that the test should 

 be whether the employer, in addition to the laboui of himself 



* \Cd. 2208. Price 2s. 2d.] 



