Smit v Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner 1979 (1) SA 51 (A)

Smit v Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner 1979 (1) SA 51 (A)

Issue: Whether a worker who is injured in the course of his employment is entitled to workmen's compensation, even if he was injured as a result of his own negligence.

Facts:

Smit was a worker who was employed by a construction company. One day, Smit was working on a construction site when he fell from a ladder and injured himself. Smit's injury was caused by his own negligence. Smit then applied for workmen's compensation.

The Workmen's Compensation Commissioner refused to award Smit workmen's compensation on the ground that Smit's injury was caused by his own negligence. Smit then appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

Held:

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that Smit was entitled to workmen's compensation, even though his injury was caused by his own negligence.

The Court reasoned that the purpose of the Workmen's Compensation Act is to provide compensation to workers who are injured in the course of their employment, regardless of the cause of their injury. The Court held that the Act does not distinguish between injuries caused by the negligence of the worker and injuries caused by the negligence of the employer.

The Court also held that the worker's negligence is not a bar to workmen's compensation unless the worker's negligence was so gross that it amounted to wilful misconduct. The Court held that Smit's negligence did not amount to wilful misconduct.

Key Facts:

• A worker was injured in the course of his employment as a result of his own negligence.
• The Workmen's Compensation Commissioner refused to award the worker workmen's compensation on the ground that the worker's injury was caused by his own negligence.
• The worker appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

Reasons:

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the worker was entitled to workmen's compensation, even though his injury was caused by his own negligence. The Court reasoned that the purpose of the Workmen's Compensation Act is to provide compensation to workers who are injured in the course of their employment, regardless of the cause of their injury. The Court also held that the worker's negligence is not a bar to workmen's compensation unless the worker's negligence was so gross that it amounted to wilful misconduct.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court of Appeal's decision in Smit v Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner 1979 (1) SA 51 (A) is a significant case in South African law. The Court's decision clarifies the law relating to the right of workers to workmen's compensation, even if their injury was caused by their own negligence.

Commentary:

The decision in Smit v Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner 1979 (1) SA 51 (A) has been criticized by some legal commentators, who argue that it is unfair to allow workers to claim workmen's compensation even if their injury was caused by their own negligence. However, the decision is still good law in South Africa.

The decision is also significant because it demonstrates the willingness of the South African courts to protect the interests of workers. The Court's decision ensures that workers who are injured in the course of their employment are able to receive compensation, even if their injury was caused by their own negligence.