COMPENSATION FOR FALL

Press, Volume LXXII, Issue 21808, 13 June 1936, Page 22

COMPENSATION FOR FALL

LOSS IN EARNING POWER OF WAITRESS MAJORITY DECISION ON AMOUNT A waitress’s claim for compensation for loss of earning power because of a foot injury after S fall while working at the Hermitage was upheld in the Arbitration Court yesterday. Compensation totalling £lll Os 8d was granted, the gmount being decided on a majority decision of the court. The plaintiff was Winifred Lucy Reddell (Mr K. G. Archer) and the defendant was the Mount Cook Tourist Company, Ltd. (Mr G. S. Thomas). The claim set out that on May 12 last year, while employed at the Hermitage, the plantiff suffered a fractured ankle in an accident arising out of her work, which totally incapaci.tated her from May 12 until November 19, 1935, when sh<? returned to work. She then found, however, that she was still partially incapacitated, and. after April 22, 1936, had to leave the work, and had since been totally incapacitated. Her average weekly earnings, with board allowance, were £2 14s a week. The defendant company had paid compensation at the rate of £1 10s a week\from MajfcJg, 1935, to October 29, 1935, but refused to pay further compensation. The plaintiff claimed such 'further com-

pensation as the court might determine, and such other relief as might be thought fit. Evidence heard in the case from five medical witnesses and the plaintiff was chiefly concerned with plaintiff’s earning capacity since the accident, with special reference to her ability to do dressmaking work, in which it was stated the plaintiff had previously been employed. After the evidence had been heard, and a short retirement had been taken, his Honour stated that by a majority decision the court had decided that the loss in earning power caused plaintiff by the accident was 12s a week. It was considered from the evidence that Miss Reddell, with her previous experience at the work, could obtain a position as a dressmaker at £2 2s a week. Judgment would accordingly be given on the difference between that wage for dressmaking work and £2 14s a week. His Honour said that Mr Monteith held the view that because of a catarrhal trouble of plaintiff which might lower her wage-earning capacity. she was entitled to more compensation than the majority decision would allow. ..... Judgment would be on the basis intimated, making a total of £lll Os Bd, his Honour concluded.