STRUCK IN THE EYE BY A PELLET.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 993, 7 December 1910, Page 5

STRUCK IN THE EYE BY A PELLET.

AN IMPORTANT JUDGMENT;- X// (By Tolegraph.-Press Association.);■•':;.: ;_ Christchurch, December s.' Vs 'An important judgment'bearing, upoB:;;' the liability of employers for.compensa/vf: ,tion was delivered by his. Honour /Mr.' •-{.' Justice Sim this morning. '.The' action*/?.' which was heard by the Court, of Arbitra-.<:-: Hon on November 21,-was one in wMclrV.y Herbert Ambrose Johnston/claimed com-;./: pensation from Ambrose Johnston. Plain-i.'/ tiff was a boy 17 years of age, employed VJ by defendant, his father, and : on/May/'" 17, while , driving a cart'belonging to. hi'ajt father, ho was struck, in the, eyeiby a.,;'' pellet from a gun fired ty a boy. The i' Court believed that the shot was -intent : X: tional, and not accidental, as/was.sworn : ■;■•': by the boy. The' question was whether-;/: tho injury sustained by. plaintiff /was// caused by accident arising out of, and/in, fy course of,-his employment'by defendant.% Tho Court held that the risk of beihg'ih<// jured by a shot fired by a mischievous' ';■» boy could not be regarded as incidental -;i. to .the occupation, of. a driver,, since';ri // was a risk common- to.all members oi 3 the community when travelling: along,tli«X highway. The accident was not the're-, f suit of any'peculiar.danger-'incidental.tt;Ji' employment, nor vas-it the result of any•'// thing plaintiff was doing , in tho; course ■■}:<.* of his work. It therefore could t not: bt ."| said to have arisen out of his employ/.j ment, and judgment must be for the de//| fendant, with, costs £i 7s. '.i