FATAL ACCIDENT TO EMPLOYEE.

Press, Volume LXVIII, Issue 20543, 11 May 1932, Page 5

FATAL ACCIDENT TO EMPLOYEE.

DECISION REGARDING INSURANCE. SUPREME COURT ACTION. In the Supremo Court yesterday, reserved judgment was given,by Mr Justice Adams in the case in which William Richard Black, a butcher, of Rakaia, sought a declaration that his Employer's Indemnity policy with the London and Lancashire Fire Insurance Company socured him from liability in the death through accident last June of an employee, George Albert Erwood. Black claimed that his policy with the insurance company covered him against all liability under the Workers' Compensation Act, 1922, in the matter of Erwood's death. His Honour reviewed the evidence, which went to show that Black, who was a butcher at Rakaia, had a halfshare in a property at Temuka, where stock was fattened for the plaintiff's butchery business and for sale privately. The Temuka. property had been purchased as a speculation seven years ago, by Black and another man, Oldfield; but they had been unable to Bell the place. It was arranged that Oldfield should run the farm until it was sold'; but in deference to plaintiff's interest it was agreed that he graze stock there. On May 10th last year plaintiff had two sows and a baconer at Temuka. He instructed Erwood to go to the farm and kill two pigs. It was while Erwood was killing the sow that his knife slipped and cut him across the, fingers and slightly on the hand, so that he died from poisoning a month later. The question for the Court was whether the pig was killed in the course of Black's butchery business, and whether Black was secured from liability because of his Employer's Indemnity policy. His Honour's Judgment. His Honour said he was satisfied that there was a genuine arrangement between plaintiff and Oldfield that the plaintiff should be entitled to raise pigs on the farm for his own benefit, and that this right was entirely separate from the business of a dairy farm carried on at Temuka by Oldfield. The business of the Temuka farm as a farm was the business of Oldfield alone. The plaintiff was concerned in the business of a butcher, and the raising, slaughtering, and selling of pigs was a legitimate part of that business, which was not confined to sales in the Rakaia shop, but included the raising of pigs for sale in conncxiou with the plaintiff's business of a butcher. No doubt, as defendant's counsel submitted, the raising and selling of pigs was normal in a dairy farmer's business, but it was also a proper adjunct to the business of a butcher who sold the flesh of pigs, and who might, by raising pigs, add to' his profits in that business. Continuing, his Honour said that he had no hesitation in finding thct when Erwood was engaged in killing the sow and dressing the carcase he was actually engaged in the plaintiff's business carried on at Rakaia. and that it was in the usual course of that business as was proved by the fact that one side of the carcase was immediately sent to the shop, made up into what was termed "small goods," and sold in the shop. It

was part of that business to raise and slaughter pigs for sale in the shop. The plaintiff was therefore entitled under the policy to the declaration for which he asked, and to the costs of the action according to scale as on a claim for £SOO. j i !