AN UNTOWARD EVENT.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXIX, Issue 76, 28 March 1908, Page 8

AN UNTOWARD EVENT.

COMPENSATION FOR WORKMAVS DEATH. EhTORTANT CODET DECISION. (By Telegraph.—Press Association.) WELLINGTON, this day. The decision of the Arbitration Court in the case of Catherine Whiteford v. The King is one of more than ordinary importance. The claimant is the widow of William Whiteford, who was employed as a labourer by the Post and Telegraph department and died suddenly last September while working at Miramar, boring a hole in an ironbark telephone post. Deceased was on a ladder about seventeen feet from the ground, his body being supported by a rope fastened to the post and round his waist. While he was thus engaged he suddenly I collapsed and fell; he was taken to the | ! hospital, and was there found to be dead, A post-mortem examination showed that Wbiteford had been suffering from atheroma, a disease of the valves of the aorta, and that death was due to syncope following on aortic regurgitation. Medical opinion was that in such cases death was liable to happen at any moment, but was more likely to occur when there was any additional obstruction to the circulation. The case was not one of very advanced atherome, and it must have required a pretty severe strain to have caused death.

The evidence called on behalf of the claimant showed that deceased had been able to go about his work in the ordinary way, and that he had not complained' at any time about tbe condition cf his health. At the time when death took place the rope, which was round his waist, -would have tended to impede the circulation and to throw a greater burden on the heart.

It was contended on behalf of the re- | spondent, that, as the condition of deceased's heart was such that death might have happened at any moment, his death in the circumstances was not due to any injury by accident. The judgment of the Court, after rejecting the foregoing circumstances, states: "We think that the ease is distinguishable from that of Gibbs v. j Thompson (decided' by this Court last year). The word 'accident,' as used m the Act, is to be construed in its popular land ordinary sense, and means a mishap |or untoward event. It seems clear that it was 'a mishap or untoward event' I that the strain of the work in which | deceased 1 was engaged should produce aortic regurgitation to such an extent |as to cause syncope. That event bap[pened in the course of the employment, and arose directly out of that employI ment, and the case thus comes within | the words of the statute. It is not certain that bnt for the exertion involved in the work in which he was engaged deceased might not have lived for 'some years. We hold therefore that the case comes within the terms of the Act, j and that the claimant is entitled to compensation. The earnings of the deceased were £2 8/ per week during the (period of his employment by the Postal and Telegraph Department, and the amount of compensation to which the claimant is entitled to is £374. We make an award for that amount, to be paid to the Public Trustee to be invested by him, and the capital and income applied' as he shall think proper for the maintenance and benefit of the claimant and the three children named in the application, with leave to the Public Trustee to apply ex parte to the Court for advice and directions. We allow the claimant her costs £10 10/, with disbursements • and witnesses' expenses I to be fixed by the Clerk of Awards." *