Abbott J:

This is an appeal from the Court of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation at Seremban.

A certain Cheng Kai Seng, hereinafter called the deceased, was employed, together with five other labourers, by the appellant to fell timber on the other side of a river being about 130 feet wide.In order to reach the place where the timber was to be felled the labourers had to cross the river and to recross it when their day's work was finished.The appellant had provided two methods of crossing the river, namely, by means of a tree which had been felled so as to make a bridge and a boat.At the material time the river was in flood and the felled tree was useless for its purpose by reason that it was totally submerged.On the day in question the deceased and his fellow-workmen had finished their day's work and the time had come for them to cross the river in order to proceed to their homes.The boat was on the far side of the river and they were unable to use it. The boat was in charge of another of the appellant's employees and he was not there at the time when the labourers wished to cross over to the other bank.It is true to say that they were expecting the man to come.The deceased and one other labourer appeared to have decided not to wait for the boatman but to cross the river. A wire rope had been stretched across the river and was used for transporting the felled timber from one bank to the other for eventual removal - the deceased and another labourer decided to cross the river by hauling themselves through the water by means of the wire rope.The other labourer proceeded first and succeeded in getting to the opposite: bank.The deceased followed and it appears that he lost his grip of the wire rope, became overwhelmed by the current running at the time and was drowned.

The deceased's widow and four minor children laid a claim under the Workmen's Compensation Enactment (Cap. 155) and the learned Commissioner, having heard the evidence decided that the accident took place arising out of and in the course of the deceased's employment. A sum of $3,200 was awarded to the applicants against the appellant.

In this Court it was argued on the part of the appellant that the deceased's death was brought about by his own foolhardy act and that his employer, having provided a safe means of crossing the river by boat, is not liable to pay compensation.It was not argued, and rightly, that, because the deceased's work had been finished for the day, he was no longer in the employment of the appellant.

The sole issue is as to whether or not the deceased met his death by engaging in a foolhardy hazard or a hazard contrary to the instructions of his employer or contrary, to such instructions as a prudent employer would have given him. I repeat that the boat was not available to the deceased and since he was entitled to proceed to his home he took the only route which was then ready at hand and available to him to return.The other labourer had safely proceeded by that means and the deceased apparently had no reason to suppose that he might have been unsuccessful in crossing the river.It does not appear to me to have been either a foolhardy risk or a highly dangerous course to adopt.The fact that he lost his grip on the wire rope was fortuitous.It cannot be said that the appellant had, at the time that there was need, provided any other means of crossing the river and I am therefore of the opinion that compensation was rightly awarded and the appeal therefore must be dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.