INJURY TO COOK

Press, Volume LXX, Issue 21118, 20 March 1934, Page 7

INJURY TO COOK

; SUSPENSORY AWARD ' (JKANTKI) (ASK IN ARBITRATION COIIM { A tii.'esluug-mdi coo!:, who wa.- mIjui'cd when his cook-hous.- caught lire i at Burn.ham more than a year ago. apI plied to the Arbitration Court yesterday for further compensation and an order fixing liability for the accident. ! After hearing evidence the' court held | that plaintiff had been fully compen- ! sated for the- incapacity following the ; accident, but made a suspensory award 'of Id a week bi-e-aus" the dnabdif i might recur. I His Honour Mr Justice- Kia.'.cr pre-lude-el. wilh him beinr Mr W. Cecil j Prime, employers' representative, ane! Mr A. L. Monteitli. employees' rcprc- : senlative. ' Plaintiff, was John William Clark, a ■cook, of Christehureh. defendants being Ijiowmans. Limited, of Christehureh. (Plaintiff was represented by Mr R. L. Saunders, and Mr R. A. Culhbert apI peared for the defendant company. i Plaintiff in his statement of claim | set out that he hael been cooking lor ithe men employed on a threshing mill (owned and operated by defendants in Ithe Rolleston district. On January I!,'. iiD33. at Burnham. the cook's galley attached to tne sleeping ' mire caught |l'::-e. and the plaintiff to save the stoveI from destruction, lifted it at one em! Ito put ou' tlie fire al that enil. In l lifting the stove plaintiH ruptured him,'s.e'f (ill the right sieie. At tlie reepicst !<f the other workmen plaintiff continued in his duties, the workmen assisting him by doing all heavy lifting. ! After March ti. 1933. lie was unable ito continue his duties and was incapacitated until after July 1. V.iA'.i. I From then until September l!'i piainjtiff was engaged in light work, earning J'ess than .1.2 a week. I Compensation Received j PlaintilT had received .C2O as cdhipensafion and Jl 1 as medical expenses 'from the- defendant company, and claimed such additional compensation as the court might think tit; a declaration of liability on the part of the' defendants, and 'he costs of the action. i The statement of defence admitted ithat plaintiff had bet n employed by 'the defendant company, but denied all I other allegations i To the court Mr Cuthbert said tha: the defendants admitted tne injury land admitted that it had been caused Iby the acciiient. lint claimed that plainlitV had been paid full compensaI tion. I His Honour: Is plamtitf ad right ■ now'.' I Mr Cuthbert: Yes. I His Honour: Has he been operated > on'.' | Mr Cuthbert: No, he is wearing a I truss. I Mr Saunders saiel that deiendants ! claimed that Clark could have resumed 'his duties in March. \ l .i.>'A, but medical •evidence would be called lo show that he was unfit lor work for three: months. : ami could do e.nly light work for ' three months after that. F.viocncc rogarehue tiie injury was , given by Dr. W. H. Simpson, who said that Clark should no( have relumed to nijrmal work tor six months after the accident. ', Evidence regarding the work he had j done after the accident was given by | plaintiff. I Evidence for the defence was given 'by Sir Hugh Aclanu. wdio said he had ! examined plaintiff and considered that I he was. capaole of doing his ordinary I work m April. 1033. with the as-dstanec "f an efficient truss.

S n..!.u .mi. nee w. - :, >, • 1,-. 1> W M. Cutli r tmil Dr It. K Hail In giving !!:e dccis on of the ru;;S his Honour said that two aspects had to be taken into consideration: Whether there was liability tor compensation after plaintill had been Into I with an eflieienl truss, unci the probability of the trouble recurring. The meii'ienJ evidence showed that plaintill' was ju- 1 a.s lit for work iiiinn .nab. !y after being litted with a truss as he was six month,:-- later, consequently i. had itcoivcd all the compensation !'■ was entitled to. A- there wa * a pe- - nihility of the trouble re.-urriug \. ■ would be aivrn a sm-peh.-ery ;nv;i: i of Id a week. The ca-e was no! one where full costs should be given, so plaintiff would be allowed the costs oi issuing 'he writ, £..") ■ '>?, and wilnewe expense-.