THROWN FROM HORSE

Evening Post, Volume CXI, Issue 66, 19 March 1931, Page 8

THROWN FROM HORSE

COMPENSATION CLAIM * • ' -— •-. '.■:"• '■■ SHAREMILKER'S STATUS A compensation caso was heard by the Arbitration;: Court yesterday after-: noon, in whiC;h?James Davidson, sharemilker, of Dyervil,lc, near Martinborpugh, was tlfo plaintiff and Henry Daysh, farmer.^also of Dyervillo, was tho defendantr/ Mr. P. B. Iv./Macassey, with, him Mr. 11. Lawson, iipjeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. 11. iV-O'Lcary for the defendant. V : -■■'. . ■-•:■■

Tho plaintiff •'claimed that as the result of being threfvn froni a horso while driving cows'iqr'-'t.hc defendant on 13th May, 1925, his: head and spine were injured and hVhad.sinco been unablo ■to work. Orf^nh 'September, 1928, tn,o defendant agfeeflto, admit liability to pay compensation; and: on Bth August, 1029, ho agreed:; to pay compensation, lrat tho patties had been uprfble , to agree upon the:amount;to bti paid. . No compensation had been, paid by the defendant. Tho plaintiff xlainied".'the paymont of a sum.equal to, £4 a week from \ tho date of tlie.'aceidant to'the hoaring v of the case, and any'-vfurther compensation which might.bo'considered reasonable., <{•:'■.,'■-■ ..' • • ■ .For the defence ; it was pleaded that tho plaintiff .was not a worker ; within. the terms of ■tlip:"Workers'.Compensa-. tion Act. It'Kvas also'denied;that. the defendant hacl, admitted:.- pliability' or. inado an offers- eff : ■•■ PERMANENTLY DISABLED. Mr. Macassey said it was admitted I that the plaintiff was .permanentlyy.in-. capacitateci*'frpiri .work' of, any kind, and that, if he wero held to bo ■ a -worker, lie .was/ entitled/to full compensation at the rate of' '£4 a week, the real question was .whether the plaintiff was a worker within tho meaning of the Act.'-,: It .was contended that he was a worker, and that the defendant having agreed, to pay compensation was debarred . from raising ' the „ point that the..■plaintiff was not a worker.' G'u-olino Davidson, wife' of the plaintiff- saul that the defendant- used to ■vis-it uei husband frequently.'-.and. give directions as to ploughing, fencing, and killing of pigs. She once heard him tell hci linsl)aiict that he waS the "boss." touoborative evidence was > given : by TU(,ttoi James Da\idson. ;: 7 :;. " ' '■'■'; 5 Iho defendant said that his practice Jwas to instruct Davidson what-; work, *4hould be .done, i: So long as.the work itkas^ao'nQy.in. jieason^the plaintiff could t&lea|e ■hirnsglfC' when; it; was done. ;Hc ; j'siir.f c j":: i n 'the ' proceeds of the 'sale of ■jaafcy crops. •■ : •fI"ARGUMENTS TOR DEFENCE. 'v The two submissions made by Mr. ■/•sio'Leary were.that the plaintiff was not Sa. worker within the Act and that the not. prevented from ■^denying, because of any alleged ngrec•ftnent, that the plaintiff •.■was a worker. Where' was'no. agreement'on the, question of whether Davidson -wasa worker *<within the Act, arid no such agreement bo construed out of the corre- ' !f?spondencci v; Counsel explained that the 'fdnsuranco company might Jiave taken ■(ra-' different: view- of the position after ,a.n .opinion on the effect of ;*tne sharcinilking agreement but.for.the •'ifact that it was reinsured in respect of %ie cpverVand'hail to maintain tho atStitudc that it could not admit liability. 'jJßyon if there, were such an agreement :fit was an agreement giving the Court jurisdiction which the Court did not ?&6ssess if the plaintiff were not a Jvworkeiv .What had happened .did- notSionsti'tuto eitheV'ari agreement to settle •'■/the claim.or an agreement on the quesJtion, of whether the plaintiff was a porker. . ■ . ' : . $ Decision was reserved.