Compensation Court WIDOW GIVEN JUDGMENT IN LAKE DROWNING CLAIM

Press, Volume XCIX, Issue 29264, 23 July 1960, Page 17

Compensation Court WIDOW GIVEN JUDGMENT IN LAKE DROWNING CLAIM

Judgment for Beverley Marilyn Hampton, widow of Kenneth Henry Millar Hampton, who was drowned when he fell through ice at Lake Emma on July 28, 1958, in a claim for compensation against Harts Aerial Topdressing, Ltd., has been entered by Judge Dalglish. | The judgment for the widow, calculated on weekly basis of compensation in accordance with principles laid down, amounts to £2702. The plaintiff also gets judgment for the defendant’s allowances for her two children (£100), funeral expenses amounting to £B4 Bs, and £73 10s costs plus witnesses’ fees and expenses. The plaintiff sued on behalf of herself and two children of her marriage to Hampton and claimed compensation on the basis that the death of Hampton was caused by an accident that arose out of and in the course of his employment with the defendant company.

The hearing was on June 15 and 16 before the Compensation Court at Christchurch. Mr R. A. Young, with him Mr G. W. Rountree, appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr R. P. Thompson for the defendant In his reserved judgment, Judge) Dalglish said that the company was incorporated in 1955 and Hampton and Warren Hart (who gave evidence for the plaintiff) were sole shareholders of the company. - Conducted Goose Shoot On July 20, 1958, the company conducted a goose shoot in the Rangitata area. Canadian geese had become somewhat of a pest in the district, and farmers were glad to have their numbers reduced. The defendant company arranged for a number of shooters to be located in a suitable place, and Hart piloted an aircraft to locate geese, scare them into flight, and, much after the fashion of a sheep dog with a flock of sheep, head them towards the shooters and endeavour to hold them within the. range of the shooters as long as possible. Judge Dalglish said the defendant company organised the shoots to rid the county of a pest, provide sport for shooters, and advertise the company in the area. On this day. Hampton was in charge of ground operations, including refuelling the aircraft. He collected a fee of £1 from each shooter and saw that .no cars were so placed that reflected light would scare the geese. Just before lunch. Hart saw wounded birds on the ice when flying over the completely frozen Lake Emma. He asked Hampton to collect the wounded geese. Hampton took the company’s four-wheel drive utility vehicle and drove to Lake Emma with three men and a boy. A man named Underwood went through the ice, and Hampton made for* Underwood. Hart, flying over the lake, saw the accident and flew to the airstrip to arrange a rescue.

“Underwood managed to make his way-to the shore and Hampton endeavoured to do likewise, but unfortunately the rescue party itself got into difficulties, with loss of life, and Hampton was also drowned.” Defence Argument Mr Thompson had submitted that the retrieving of geese from the ice was outside the scope of Hampton’s employment with the company and was not even incidental to it He also submitted that Hampton’s subsequent actions in going to the rescue of Underwood were quite outside the obligations of his employment. There was an emergency, but in counsel’s submissions there was no duty on Hampton to go to the rescue of Underwood under the terms of the contract of employment. Judge Dalglish said that he was satisfied that Hampton was acting in the course of his employment when he went out on the ice to retrieve wounded geese.

“I hold this view notwithstanding that the request to go to the lake to retrieve geese was not couched'in the form of aa order . . . The money received from the shoot was taken into account in assessing the bonus payable to Hampton, and it was in the interests of the company that the shoot be conducted to the satisfaction of the shooters, both from the point of view of future shoots and advertising the defendant company and its aerial work,” said Judge Dalglish. “One. of the attractions to shooters was undoubtedly that they would, if possible, receive a bird at the conclusion of the day’s shooting. It was Hampton's task to see to the collection of the birds and to their distribution among the shooters; ’ If the birds fell at any great distance

it was Hampton’s job to collect the birds with assistance of any other employees of the company or volunteers. 'That is what he was doing when he was on Lake Emma.” “True Emergency” The judgment held that there had been a true emergency. There was no doubt that a drowning during a shoot conducted by the defendant company would, generally speaking, react unfavourably against the company, which would be expected to take the necessary precautions to prevent such a tragedy. The judgment also held 7 that Underwood had attempted to cross the ice at the request of Hampton, and Hampton had made the request, in his capacity as an employee of the defendant company in charge of the party at Lake Emma to collect geese to distribute to the shooters. “I am of the opinion, in all the circumstances, that the attempt by Hampton to rescue Underwood fell within the emergency rule and was something which he did in the cause of his employment. As Hampton lost his life in that attempt, the plaintiff widow is entitled to judgment.”