Labour-lnjury-Compensation-No evidence of negligence

Negligence-Personal injury-Employee-Damages claimed in 'addition to statu-
tory compensation-Escaping steam in 'boiler room of boat

Workmens Compensation-Absent statutory provision-Full statutory compen-
sation already awarded-Whether common law right to compensation

Plaintiff, a greaser employed by the Egyptian Government, lost the
sight of one eye and 75 per cent of the sight of the other as the result
of an accidental escape of steam on a launch on which he was working.
He was paid '£E.S7.600 mlms, being the maximum special gratuity payable
in the event of disability under the provisions of the Egyptian Royal Pen-
sions Ordinance. which was applicable to his contract of service. Plaintiff
sued for £'E.200 in damages.

Held: (i) There was no negligence on the part of defendant or its
servants.

• Court: Fleming-Sandes 1. .

(ii) Plaintiff had received his due by way of gratuity under the Egyp-
tian Pensions Ordinance and, in the absence of negligence. had no claim to
further cornpens.uion hy way of damages at common law.

Egyptian Royal Pension Ordinance 1905

Action

Advocate: L. Sorial . . . for defendant.

August I, 1940. Fleming-Sandes J.: The facts of this case are
not in dispute. The plaintiff, a greaser in the employment of the
defendant at a daily rate of pay of PT.8, was injured by an escape
of steam while working on the small steam launch Karraba at Ter-
rakakka on July 14, 1937. He received injuries which resulted in
his losing completely the sight of his right eye and 75 per cent of the
vision of the left. After undergoing hospital treatment he was invalided
from the service 011 September 15, 1937. Some time later he was
paid the maximum special gratuity granted in the case of disability
arising out of an accident while on duty under the provisions of sec-
tion 39 of the Egyptian Royal Pension Ordinance of April 5, 1905, as
amended by that of June 19, 1910. This sum amounted to £E.57.600
m/rns, representing the amount of two years wages at the rate of
PT.8 per day. In this suit he claims a further sum of £E.200 by
way of additional compensation for the injuries suffered while in the
defendant's employment.

At an early stage of the case Mr. Sorial for the defendant invited
me to dismiss the suit on the ground that no cause of action had been
disclosed. He argued that as the plaintiff had been paid the maximum
compensation provided for in the Egyptian Royal Pension Ordinance
1905, as subsequently amended, for disability due to accident, there
could be no possible basis for a further claim for compensation on the
same score. The plaintiff throughout the proceedings has been un-
represented, and for that reason r felt that it would be preferable to
go into every possible aspect of the case rather than dismiss the suit
upon what might appear at first sight to be somewhat of a technicality.
To this view Mr. Sorial readily assented. He agreed that the issue
of negligence by the. defendants or their servants should be tried, this
being the only possible basis upon which the plaintiff could succeed.
If negligence were established, the point of whether that common law
right was taken away by the Egyptian Royal Pension Ordinance could
be considered. If negligence were not established the suit would have
to be dismissed.

The particulars upon which the plaintiff has relied in support of
his allegation of negligence are: first, that the launch, due to the
negligent steering of the rcis, had stranded on a submerged mudbank,
causing the injector to choke, and bringing about the resulting "blow
back"; and secondly, that the injector had been positioned at such a
low height that it constituted a danger to an operator in the event of
an escape of steam into the waste pipe.

As regards the first point the evidence called did not support the
facts alleged by the plaintiff. The reis, who appeared to be a truthful
witness, confirmed on oath what he had deposed to at an enquiry held
shortly after the accident, that he had pulled into the west bank in
answer to a call from the osta. He presumed, and I think rightly,
that this was for the purpose of remedying some mechanical defect.
There was no question of the launch stranding on a mud bank. The
inlet hole for the water to the injector is on the port side, while ac-
cording to his evidence the launch drew in to the bank with its star-
board side to the shore. The inlet pipe therefore could not have been
in direct contact with the mud. These two statements given at an
interval of nearly three years were identical and there is "no reason to
suppose that they are not substantially true. Accordingly, I can find
no evidence of the negligent steering alleged by the plaintiff.

The second ground of negligence put forward by the plaintiff was
the positioning of the injector itself. This had to be placed low so
that injected water could enter the boiler below the water level inside.
It was necessary for an operator to bend down in order to open the
steam valve for this device.; If anything were to go wrong with the
injector while the operator was in this position injury was almost cer-
tain to result. It was proved in evidence that this launch was one of
five ordered in 1928, in all of which the injector was placed in the
same position. No similar trouble had been experienced in any of
the other craft, nor had it previously occurred in the launch on which
the plaintiff had been working for the preceding four years. Further,
it was pointed out that the waste pipe of the injector pointed down-
wards. Any set of steam escaping through this pipe would be de-
fleeted upwards from the deck, and would by then have lost its force
a"nd power to injure. On these facts I see no reason to hold that there
was negligence in the positioning of the injector itself.

This disposes of the two grounds relied upon by the plaintiff to es-
tablish his case. There was however a third ground upon which the
plaintiff might conceivably have based some claim. It became neces-