CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION.

Press, Volume LXVII, Issue 14054, 27 May 1911, Page 11

CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION.

AX INTERESTING CASE

At the Arbitration Court yesterday, Mr Justice Sim presiding, John Briggs (Mr Wilding) asked for a lump sum as compensation for an accident sustained while in the employ of Booth, Macdonald and Co.. Ltd., implement manufacturers and importers (Mr Alpors.)

Mr. Wilding said Briggs was a traveller for defendants, and on November 10th. 1910, whilo riding a bicycle back home from the A. and P. Show, was knocked down by a.taxicab in Hereford street. As a result of his injuries, he was totally incapacitated until January 21et and has been partially incapacitated ever since tho latter date. His average wages wero £4 a week. Ho was required to rid© the bicycle, which was the property of Booth, Macdonald and • Co. Counsel cited the English case of Pearco v. the Provident Clothing Supply Company, in which a canvasser on a bicycle was kuled by a train car, and his widow was awarded compensation. Mr Alpcrs said defendants admitted claimant was totally incapacitated up to December 12th, but denied that he was incapacitated since that date, and they also denied that the accident arose in tho course of his employment. Claimant stated that he had received his £4 a week ever since the accident-, but this was only as a loan pending the settlement with the South British Insurance Co. At the time of tho accident he was going home to tea and. to get samples o£ belting ariel price lists to show to Charles Barnes in tho evening. Ho was still canvassing for Booth, Macdonald and Co., but now he did only half the business he used to do. Mr Alpers said Booth, Macdonald and Co. were prepared to keep Briggs on at his old rate of wages. They wero not opposing the claim; it was tho Insurance Company that contested it. Hia Honour said that if claimant got nominal damages that would keep his rights alive in caso he lost his billet afterwards. Evidence was given by Dr. Alfred Sandstein William Manifold Watson, and Charles Barnes. The last -mentioned witness said he had an appointment with Briggs at Tattersall's Hotel, for the evening of November 10th. William Samuel Newburgh, secretary for the defendant company, stated that Mr Caffin, manager of tho Accident Branch of the South British Insurance Company, asked Briggs if he had finished work at the Show grounds when he left, and Briggs paid "Yes." Caffin then withdrew his offer of, £20 in settlement. Caffin «>aid nothing about repudiating liability. He was fairly certain that no question was asked by Caffin about Briggs having appointments in the evening with customers.

In regard to tho arrangement to consider Briggs's wages as a loan, his Honour said that tho defendant conipany would have no claim against him for any part of tho amount they might pay him. Their claim Avould be against the Insurance Company. Eley M. Caffin, in charge of the Accident Branch of the South British Insurance Company, stated that when Briggs had been absent from work a few weeks, he (witness) offered him £20 in settlement. Then he happened to learn that Briggs was on his way home to tea at t!ho time of the accident, and he asked Briggs if he had .any appointments in town in the evening. He distinctly remembered Briggs replying he had no such appointment. Witness then repudiated liability on tho ground that tbo accident did not arise in the course of claimant's employment. Mr Alpers submitted that BriKgs had, for hie tea time, an. hour and a half between leaving the show arid the time of his evening appointment, and was his own master during that time. Briggs's day was finished when he left tho Show grounds, and tho appointments he made to meet peopb at certain hotels on the night of November 10th wero private meetings with friends, nnd any business was merely incidental. ■'•'■■

His Honour expressed""" the opinion that a canvasser fixed his own hours to suit his employer's requirements. Mr Alpers said that in the case of Pearce (quoted above) the claimant recovoml because it was decided that his work took him largely in the streets. That case was silent as to the man's hours, and was no authority as in whether the accident arose out of and. in the course of the man's employment. In reply, Mr Wilding contended that, Briggs had a. continuous mandate from his employers during Show week to go to tho Show and to look for business in the evening. He was still "in the course of" his employment while {roing to .md returning from the Show ground, just as he was when going to and from a placo in the train. The Court reserved judgment.