WORKERS' ACCIDENTS

Auckland Star, Volume XXXIX, Issue 68, 19 March 1908, Page 3

WORKERS' ACCIDENTS

COMPENSATION CASES BEFORE THE COURT. (By Telegraph.—Press Association.) WELLINGTON, Wednesday. At the Arbitration Court to-day two compensation cases were dealt with. The widow of the late William C. Whiteford proceeded against the Crown for £400 as compensation for an.accident, which was alleged to have caused her husband's death while working for the Post and Telegraph Department. Whiteford was employed on the top rung of a ladder boring a hole in a post, to carry telephone wires. He was about 23ft from the ground and had a rope around his body. Suddenly he collapsed, and leaned back on the rope, and when lowered to the ground he was found to be dead. It was shown that deceased had heart affection, and died from regurgitation. The contention was that, as he had to work with his body thrown backwards from the pole, death was due to, or was accelerated by, the strain of the position. Counsel for the Crown submitted that the accident had not arisen out of deceased's employment, also that the injury suffered was not one which might have been avoided. It was one that might have happened to . him at any moment. He contended that unless there was physical injury the Act did not* apply here. The man died from natural :auses. The Court reserved its decision. William Kelly proceeded against the Onion Steam Ship Company, claiming £300 compensation for the loss of an jye while m their employ. The man a blacksmith, was working at the comjany's repairing yard, and while dressing i bolt head was struck iv the left eye ay a small piece of iron, chipped off the tool he was using. The pupil of the rye was so badly hurt that the sight vas destroyed, and the eye had to be removed. He claimed that as a result ,he right eye was also affected, his light being so much impaired as to present him from following his trade. Beipondents claimed that the right eye! tad not been affected, and the loss of he left eye would not affect the man's arning powers, and that they were not lable to pay compensation. The.Court mid that claimant was not able to reurn to his previous employment, and m order was made for the payment of El 7/2 weekly during His per i od ot ncapacity. If the company offered em--loyment, and the claimant accepted it •ayments should be stopped.