The Dominion. TUESDAY, MARCH 31, 1908. ACCIDENTS TO WORKERS.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 160, 31 March 1908, Page 6

The Dominion. TUESDAY, MARCH 31, 1908. ACCIDENTS TO WORKERS.

A suggestion of much 'interest to workers and employers, and one ■ which., deserves the attention of the-. Govern-' ment, is put forward by a correspondent whose letter we print in another column. He urges that in the interests of: justice the Arhitration Court, when sitting in it's capacity as: a: Court of Compensation 1 / for,: Occidents . to workers, should have the assistance. of medical assessors.',; As he'' points out, laymen : must' experience particular difficulty m drawing a correct conclusion : from a mass of; conflicting medical testimony, or .testimony/apparently conflictingj arising out of i the. .anxiety of the opposing counsel to'extract that evidence'which, supports' their Opposite' sides in the case..' Our correspondent' well observes that it is extraordinary that, while in this country expert ; assessors are entrusted with nautical inquiries .and claims !for compensation for land taken by the Government, expert assessors are not 'considered necessary when the subject in dispute is the amount of. compensationfor loss by death or bodily injury.; It is true, of course, thai in inquests, and in some criminal. chai'ges, such as assault and murder, much depends upon the medical testimony, and that the conservation of 'justice depends upon, the .correct estimation of this evidence by a layman or-a body of laymen. But in; these cases' there is seldom a conflict of testimony,, and in- practically, all the point to be decided by the magistrate or the jury is quite simple, and nontechnical —a mere matter-for a plain "Yes" or "Xo." In the compensation claims brought' before, the .Arbitration 'Court thecircumstances ■ are wholly different. ..The evidence is •practically all medical evidence, arid the very object for the Court's concern with such cases 1 is the assessment of one expert's testimony on thoroughly exotic questions against another's.; , The matter is one of special interest just now in view of the precedent established by the Court in its' judgment given last Friday, in the, case of Whiteford v. The King. It is impossible to over-estimate the importance of this far-reaching and revolutionary decision.' The husband of the claimant in this case, while working on a telephone pole, suddenly died. , He was at the time supported, apparently according to custom, by a rope dbout his body, It was shown that death 'was due to syiioopefollowing on aortic

regurgitation, due to valvular heart disease. Claimant established to the Court's satisfaction that the regurgitation was induced, or, in other words, that the crisis was caused, by the pressure of the rope, and that, therefore, the man's death was due directly to the conditions of his employment. What this judgment means can best be realised by considering the onus of disproof that was laid upon respondent. In the words of the judgment: "If the respondent had established; that the condition of deceased was such that, in any event, the regurgitation would have taken place at or about the time when death occurred, and that the strain of the work in which deceased was engaged had really nothing to do with producing it, the position would have been different." . The issues before the Court, it will be seen, were exquisitely difficult and delicate. Whether medical assessors would have given a different judgment cannot, of course, be determined; But it is apparent that; the judgment has widely and alarmingly-extended the liability of employers, and in many future cases, perhaps in .most of-them, the securing of; justice may turn upon a point ■ absolutely, undeterminable by the Court' from the conflict of testimony before it. We are not concerned here with .'the vast industrial 'issues raised by the caseUnder'notice, but it will serve to show that tho suggestion of our correspondent deserves the most serious i