COMPENSATION CLAIMS.

Press, Volume LXVIII, Issue 20610, 28 July 1932, Page 15

COMPENSATION CLAIMS.

ARBITRATION court decisions. JUDGMENT AGAiNST CITY COUNCIL. elaiu.3 » for compensation—one death, and the other incaLwftfttion —were dealt with yesterday Arbitration Court, comprising % Justice Frozer, Mr W. Cecil Prime jlployers' representative \ and ilr A. j ('employees' representa- * first v '" as that AnrAc Car °- . jYanccs Dalwood. widow of Walter Dalwood; against tile City ggporation of Christchurch. statement or claim set out that 0 r about Juuc sthl at Christ - while in the employ of the deftjjj.nt and during and in the course that employment, Walter Christopher jjglvood sustained personal injury—a 0 i the heart —and died of heart fcjlnmresulting from tbc injury already jfyTioned. Dalwood left his wife and . ehild of twelve years, who were fkolJy dependent on him. It was stated ikat the average weekly earnings of gjjjrood during the twelve months prior die accident were £2 Os 10-id. <He defendant corporation, in its jttment, denied the allegations submitted by the petitioner. ' Case for the Petitioner. (jcnasel for the petitioner said Dal«od was engaged ou rt'lief work at tfc time of his death. A post-mortem gynnation had revealed that he had j weak heart, and some little time be{m his death he had had giddy turns; Ist counsel would show that his death 111 a direct relation to the work he |al been doing, and resulted directly fm it* Eridenee was given by the petitioner, trbo that her husband had had one 0 two giddy turns about the time of death. It had never been previously mpwW that he suffered from heart tnmble. flhwnea Frederick Dyer, superintendot of the relief job on which Dallied had been engaged, said he had % very high opinion of Dalwood J s work. . jUtieiime of his death Dalwood was nattering screenings behind the tarIjßiyer, which was definitely uiorc itmootu than other work, and which lid to be done with speed. After Dalned's collapse, the ambulance was sent its, but in witness's opinion the man IN dead before the ambulance arsnd. 'Evidence was also given by Harold Wiekham, ft foreman, and James 3lea labourer. Medical evidence was given by Dr. i. B. Pearson, who conducted a postaortem examination. He said he bcBrred that Dalwood's work had been 8 Yery definite factor in causing death, tie nan having a badly diseased heart. Dilatation was present, which was connrtent with a strain. Cross-examined, Dr. Pearson said that Tith Mb heart in that condition, death Mold possibly have occurred while the aaa was in bed, or walking about. Dr. M. K. Gray said he agreed with Dr. Pearson as to the cause of death. He thought it was tery unlikely that man would hare died asleep" or atr Tflrt. "With, a lighter job he could have carried on longer.

!todfcal Evidence for Defence. UKlfor ibe defendant corporation i wsm not possible to show that ITM dir#ctly due to Dahvood's lad if the petitioner could not tat that was bo, her case could «e<L Counsel would call evidence that death might just as easily :urred vrhile Dalwood was workcsting. . 11. Baxter said Dalwood's as in a serious state of disease, iras equally possible that he iavc died in bed, or walking r working. The post-mortem conid not show that strain had any on thb heart's collapse. • W. Giesen gave evidence genBrroborating that given bv Dr. Judgment Delivered. ' judgment. Air Justice Frazer appeared from this action that > lav and medical science were lewhat unsatisfactory case. Modface had not reached a point h it ■was as definite as might ed in fcere Tras still much which they to have explained. Mems clear from the medical evicontinued his Honour, "that ia any event could not have •wapre than a few v<eks or months. #■ tbe law stands, Lis case is the aa.tlut of a sound and healthy died as the result of a ton falling on h im.'' j** present case, proceeded Mr *"JjW PVazer, they had the advantage evidence of a skilled pathologist, a post-mortem examination. 2Jr "*• Pearson and Dr. Gray had mill l the dilatation of the SS? they said was the cause ggjwa, waa probably as big as it was for it to be, considering the ■ 2*5 heart muscle: and that t ST contr 'huted to by the na- ; work which the man was 2P" necessitating his working at s r 'derly mail, of Go *go, was doing •work to which | *®t accustomed, and which was t strenuous than ordinary work. Two Alternatives. dZg* J*®®# as .it stood, contained two said his Honour. It might the man had died from some heart failure; but no cxi C2r®® the mechanics of the ft. *'ajlnre had been suggested by 1 WiS"'. hand, the direct evidence of the postjj™W»nding, which showed there was : jJWWiott of the heart consistent tho Court could not be enabout tho case—medical fc-j not gone far enough to give B ata explanation—tbe weight of w ®nt to show that there was kA between the man's rMhiinii ' 6 *' rae a,, d ( 'eath. said f ' Judgment would therefore 'ttmT? '° r Sjg* Uonour said the amount of the ""'age had i.ot been aseerthe amount could be deter■Rlsf judgment would be given in with £ls los costs, £2O 7s medical expenses, medical jjMBBj? *8 Ss each, and lay witnesses ':Q|" Second Case Heard. case was that of WilPriest against the Suinclaim set out that | ffipT jfaV the month of April last fWetiJP" I *' * n c ° ur sc as a. labourer by borough, sustaiued per- **}' accident, in tho form HDQI Of the hear f . He was now —gßfffpart ially incapacitated, and gfIDQV/PUble again to undertake | ■hHRHM nuoual work. BBbH®** was a general denial of

the allegations, it being added that if any accident occurred as alleged in the statement, then no notice of such accident was given to tho defendant as soon afterwards as was practicable; and also that no action for the recovery of compensation was commenced within six months, the time required for such action. Evidence was given by the petitioner, his wife, Mary Priest. John nines, Dr. J. F. Landrcth, and Dr. K. 11. Baxter. Non-suit Motion Upheld. Counsel for the defendant moved for a non-suit, on the grounds that there was no proper notification of the accident, and that the claim was out of time. The Court upheld the motion for a non-suit, holding that the defence had clearly been prejudiced by the delay. Leave was reserved for the defence to apply for costs.