Whether or not the contraction of a disease constitutes an accident depends upon the na ture of the disease. It must he one the con traction of which can be definitely fixed in point of time as an event. This would seem not to include idiopathic diseases. On the other hand, a disease contracted as by infec tion from the lodgment of bacilli comes well within the definition of an accident. A work man was employed to open and sort bales of Persian wool. While so engaged his eye became infected with anthrax which neces sitated an operation, from which he died. The disease was caused by a bacillus alight ing on his eye. In this instance it could be told definitely the day on which the injury occurred, and with considerable certainty the manner in which it occurred, and it was held to be due to an accident ; [1905] A. C. 230. While employed in clearing a mill-race, a workman caught a sudden chill; caused by immersion in the water. Inflammation of the kidneys supervened, and he died several days later. The evidence showed that the attack could only have been brought on by exposure to cold water. It was held that death was due to an accident; [1910] Ir. Rep. 105. A workman of poor physique was employed in the stoke-hold of a vessel. The conditions there were normal, but as usual the place was very warm. The man suffered from a heat stroke, which resulted in his death. It was held that his death was due to an acci dent; [1908] A. C. 437.
Shock and fright are included within the meaning of accident, although the injury is purely mental, and not physical; , [1896] 3 Q. B. 248. Death from heart disease; 4 But terworth's W. S. Cas. 190 ; death or injury from inhalation of gas ; [1911] 2 K. B. 747 ; or from lightning ; [1904] 2 K. B. 32; have been held accidents. The question of acci dent is one of fact and law ; [1903] A. C. 443.
Dependents. The compensation acts usu ally award benefits to those who, are de pendent upon the deceased workman. There are various statutory provisions as to just who are dependents.
Romer, L. J., in [1899] 1 Q. B. 1005, said: "I think that the 'dependents' who are enti tled to claim compensation under the act must be dependents in the proper sense of the word, and not merely persons who derive a benefit from the earnings of the deceased. I also think that a 'dependent' must be a person who is dependent upon the deceased for the ordinary necessaries of life having regard to the class and position of the par ties." This view has since been very materially changed ; it being held that no standard of living can considered. Consequently the fact that a person may be able-bodied and well able to make a living for himself and family, far as necessaries are considered, does not prevent his being dependent upon another. Thus, Main Colliery Co. v. Davies,
[1900] A. C. 358, holds that a father is part dependent on the earnings of •a son who con tributes to the support of the family, which the father is bound by law to maintain. A woman may be dependent on her husband or children, or on her husband and her children at the same time, the question being one of fact. The widow and children of a workman have been held to be no less wholly depeud eut upon the workman because the latter had been enabled, through the receipt by him, either directly or through his wife as his agent, of money from wage-earning sons or of money coming to him through other channels, to augment the fund out of which he has been legally bound to maintain, and had maintained, his house-hold ; Senior v. Fountains, [1907] 2 K. B. 563. The earnings of a father, and son and two daughters were put in a fund from which the expenses of the entire family, including a mother and three other children, were paid. The son was kill ed in his employment, and the parents ap plied for compensation, and the court found as a fact that the parents were • partly de pendent upon the son's earnings ; Main Col liery Co. v. Davies, [1900] A. C. 358.
The fact that a wife is not living with her husband at the time of his death is of no consequence, aside from some express statu tory provision to the contrary. The ques= tion is still one of fact whether she is being supported by him. Aside from statutory pro vision, and contrary to the earlier English decisions on the question, it is now settled that there is no legal presumption of the dependency of the wife upon her husband, on account of the legal obligation of the husband to support her ; New, etc., Collieries v. Keel ing, [1911] A. C. 648.
A husband and wife quarreled at a time when he was unemployed. He went to an other town and secured employment, and earned regular wages for about three weeks, when he was killed by an accident. This was about four months after his separation from his wife. During this time the wife had subsisted on her own small casual earn ings and occasional small contributions from relatives, and for one week she was in the work-house. In her testimony she stated that she expected her husband back every day to provide a home for her. It was held that the wife was dependent upon her hus band's earnings, and entitled to compensa tion; Coulthard v. Consett Iron Co., [1905] 2 K. B. 869. Upon the death of her mother a daughter, who had previously been earning wages, remained at home to keep house for her father. For this she received board, lodging and clothing, but no wages. She ap plied for compensation on the death of her father, and was awarded the same on the ground that she was dependent upon him ; Moyes v. Dixon, 42 Sc. L. Rep. 319.