CAGE ACCIDENT.

Auckland Star, Volume LXV, Issue 68, 21 March 1934, Page 7

CAGE ACCIDENT.

MINER'S INJURIES. 1 £1500 AWARD CHALLENGED. SUPREME COURT ARGUMENT. The awarding of £1500 damages as compensation for injuries received by John Hislop Gordon, a miner, employed by the Waihi Gold Mining Co., was contested in the Supreme Court before Mr. Justice Ostler this morning. Gordon was injured in the Waihi mine on July 26 last and in a claim subsequently heard in the Warden's Court under the provisions of the Mining Act, 1920, the jury awarded £1500 damages. Mr. H. P. Richmond, who appeared for the Waihi Company, then submitted that by virtue of 67 of the Workers' Compensation Act, 1922 (reproducing corresponding provisions of the Act of lDoi>) that tlie maximum amount the plaintiff could recover was £1000. At common law it was not competent for an injured man to claim any damages in respect of injuries occasioned by the negligence of a fellow servant, but that rule of common law was abolished by section 36 of the Regulations of Mines Act, 1874, which provisions are now in sections 294-5 of the Mining Act, 1920. The question now at issue is whether these provisions are amended by the provisions of _ the Workers' Compensation Act limiting damages to £1000. Following- the verdict and the submissions made by Mr. Richmond in tue Warden's Court at Waihi, the warden suspended the entering of judgment and intimated that he would state a case for the Supreme Court. This morning Mr. H. P. Richmond and Mr. West appeared for the Waihi Gold Mining Company and Mr. P. J. O'Regan, of Wellington, for the plaintiff.

Cage Breaks Away. Mr. Richmond said the case arose out of what was commonly known as "The Cage Accident," which occurred at the Waihi mine in July of last year. One of the cages in which miners were conveyed up and down the shaft broke away, in some unexpected manner, and a number of miners were very seriously injured. / Several claims—l 3 in all—were brought by the injured miners, and some had been disposed of, judgment having been o-iven for less than £1000 in some cases, for £1000 in one case, and for £1000 m the case now the subject of argument.

History of Acts'. The maximum amount which could be awarded by law in any case where a worker was injured, but not fatally, through the negligence of a fellow servant,, submitted Mr. Richmond, was £1000. The matter now before the Court was of great importance to the whole mining industry, and to arrive at a clear view of the construction of the Mining Act, 1926, and the Workers Compensation Act, 1922, it was necessary to trace the history of those Acts. He then traced the history of the Acts from 1874 right down to the Mining Act of 1920. He contended that the miner was not in the exceptional position of being the only employee in New Zealand who could claim unlimited damages for injuries received. _ The maximum amount that could be claimed, Mr. Richmond submitted, was £1000.

Plant Not Faulty. Mr. O'Regan admitted that the accident was not caused by any fault in the company's plant, but was due to the negligence of a fellow servant. He argued that the sections applying to the present action in the Mining Act were special legislation, and could not be superseded by general legislation. He quoted numerous authorities and Acts, and submitted that under the Mining Act the damr.ges a miner could claim for injuries received as the result of an act of negligence by a fellow servant were not limited.

Mr. O'Regan said that it was extraordinary that if a miner brought an action for damages under the special provisions of the Mining Act before the Warden's Court, and failed in the action, he forfeited all rights to compensation.

His Honor: That is a ridiculous position.

Mr. O'Regan said he quite agreed, but that was the law at present.

After Mr. West had replied to the contentions of Mr. O'Leary, his Honor reserved his decision.