Adelaide Stevedoring Company Limited v Forst [1940] HCA 45

Ritctean "Ble kere Cons/Expl qnd Common. Repatnation fear

Commission Gens ALB We fopornign v ee Foll ai Het 101 Jessop y Foll

poke fru Budworth Belghtonv mE judworthv Fol opr Repatriation Hathera ca i a a ed raise 46 2001) 63°" Commission, 538 ALD 360 Lb422 Re H03)79 COURT

[HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.]

ADELAIDE STEVEDORING COMPANY LIMITED: 0 1° + (2 RESPONDENT, AND FORST H rs 9 3 E 3 . Responve APPLICANT,

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA.

H. C. or A. Workers' Compensation—Accident arising out of and in the course of employ

1940. Death of workman following exertion—Death due to coronary thrombosis Sm Conflict of medical evidence as to relation of death to employment—Workmen' ADELAIDE, Compensation Act 1932-1935 (S.A.) (No. 2103—No. 2246), sec. 4. eatiogs A waterside worker and winchman was engaged in discharging cargo MELBOURNE, 4g liner. _He was a powerful and vigorous man, and, until his collapse, on th Dec. 19. day of his death, he appeared to be in normal health. On that day, : Rich ACJ, performing two tasks which involved muscular exertion, he collapsed

Starke, Dixon

and McTiernan shortly afterwards died. On an application by his widow for compensat wi,

workman's death could not satisfactorily be said to have been caused exertion. He accordingly found that the death was not the result of inj accident arising out of and in the course of the employment within the meanit of sec. 4 of the Act. On appeal the Supreme Court (which, under see. 41 the Act, had power to rehear the case and to decide questions of fact as as of Jaw) decided that, although the expert evidence was not conclu showed that physical exertion was commonly, though not invariably, th inciting cause of coronary thrombosis, and that, having regard to th probabilities, the proper conclusion was that the workman's exertion was in fact the cause of it in this case. The court therefore set aside the fi