CLAIM AGAINST CROWN

Press, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 25329, 31 October 1947, Page 3

CLAIM AGAINST CROWN

WIDOW’S ACTION FOR COMPENSATION

A claim for compensation, which was opened on April 1, 1946, and partly heard in Dunedin. Wellington, and Christchurch, was completed yesterday in the Compensation Court at Christchurch before Judge Ongley. The case .had been referred back to Christchurch because of an apparent conflict between the evidence given at the previous hearing and that given at the inquest. ... „ The claim was one by Jessie Ann Fothe»’ingham, of 57 Lincoln road, widow of Andrew Thomas Fotheringham, against the Crown for £lOOO as compensation. ; In her statement of claim the suppliant said that on December 18, 1944, while he was employed by the New Zealand Government Railways, her husband slipped and fell to the ground while cleaning the outside of carriage windows at the Christchurch railway station. He sustained severe injury to his heart ana/died later that day. Mr T. A. Gresson appeared for Mrs Fotheringham and Mr A. W. Brown for the respondent. Mr Gresson said he believed there were no actual contradictions in the evidence given before the Compensation Court—it was simply that it was given in greater detail than the evidence at the inquest. His Honour said that the suppliant’s case was based on evidence not’ given at the inquest. At the inquest it was stated that Fotheringham got as far as the lower step of the carriage and then collapsed. In the Compensation Court the evidence was that he climbed on “to the platform, reached up to climb into the carriage and then fell. Alfred James Jeffrey, in reply to Mr Brown, said he saw Fotheringham walk along the plank outside the carriage, put his foot on the step, slip, and fall backwards. He just heard the scuffle of Fotheringham?s feet and saw him try to grab the rail as he was falling. The Judge: Can you tell me why he let go with his right hand if he had not already collapsed?--! think he let go because of the fright he would get in falling. The Judge: It is suggested that he let go because he had collapsed. I can’t understand him letting go his right hand at the very time he should have held on. Witness: He moved after he was on the ground.

The Judge: The question is, did he die because of the fall or did he fall because he had already collapsed? I will consider my decision in the light of the new evidence.