BURNED BY RADIATOR.

Auckland Star, Volume LVIII, Issue 134, 9 June 1927, Page 11

BURNED BY RADIATOR.

WAITRESS IN RESTAURANT

EMPLOYER SUED FOR DAMAGES. (By Telegraph.—Own Correspondent.) CHRISTCHURCH, this day. A claim for damages to the amount of £3156 was heard in the Supreme Court to-day before Mr. Justice Adams, when Rita Gatehouse, ex-waitress, sued Herbert Benjamin Manttan, restaurant proprietor, for compensation owing to extensive burns received through her clothing catching fire by coming into contact with a radiator used in defendant's shop.

In opening the case for the plaintiff, counsel stated that plaintiff, at the time of the accident, June 3, 1920, was employed a« a waitress at defendant's restaurant. It was usual lor waitresses to assist in the shop in the evening when their other work was done. On the evening of June 3, 1920, plaintiff attended in the shop. Two customers came in at one time, and the shop girl, Olive Holmes, asked plaintiff to take the money and put it in the cash register. In doing so plaintiff's dress came in contact with the radiator, which was placed near rhe register, with the rcfilt that her clothing caught fire and she was shockingly burnt. In consequence she underwent eight months' treatment in hospital.

Counsel contended that the radiator used* was unsafe, anil, what was more, that the space between the radiator and the cash register was too cramped, thus contributing greatly to the possibility of accident. In the statement of defence it was claimed that the radiator used was safe and proper and was an ordinary type of commercial radiator. Further, defendant claimed that the accident was due. to the negligence of plaintiff in permitting: her clothing to cfome into contact with the heater or the elements. Defendant was now and had been t always willing to pay compensation ascertained pnder the provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act. 1022. and had paid plninti'T amounts due to her under that Act.

His Honor reserved the question of a nonsuit, for which defending counsel applied.

Evidence was concluded and the addresses of counsel were adjourned until Monda v.