COMPENSATION.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1174, 8 July 1911, Page 6

COMPENSATION.

WHEN THE BREADWINNER DIES, COURT DECISIONS. WIDOW'S DOUBTFUL CLAIM. Three interesting judgments of the Court of Arbitration in cases under the Workers' Compensation for Accidents Act wero lodged yesterday with the Clerk of Awards. All tho cases were heard during the recent Wellington sittings of the Court. In the first case the Court gavo an answer—admittedly an inconclusive one—to tho question whether tho family of a worker who has been killed by accident in the course of his employment can claim under the Workers' Compensation Act on the basis of the support ho was liable to provide them, or are they restricted to claiming upon the basis "of what they actually received from him? This interesting question was argued beforo tho Court on June 27 by Mr. O'Regan, for claimants, and Mr. W. H. D. Bell, for respondent. Judgment was lodged with the Clerk of Awards yesterday. Georgo Thomas Sherwood, whilo in the employ of the Now Zealand Shipping Company at Wellington, was killed by accident on March i, 1911. Deceased left a widow and two infant children, aged eight and seven years, living with their mother, Flora Sherwood, at Duuedin. On February 27, 1906, tho husband,and wifo had, at Dunedin, entered into an agreement to live apart,. tho husband agreeing to pay plaintiff 15s. per week towards tho maintenance of herself and children. He paid the instalments for about six months, after which he disappeared, and his wifo heard no more of him until she read in a newspaper of his death by accident. She now claimed the sum of .£1.17 as a partial dependent within tho meaning of the Workers' Compensation Act, being three times the amount of the yearly sum of payment at the rato of lis. per week. Mr. Justice Sim stated in his judgment that if the family were only partial dependents it was clear, the Court thought, that they were not entitled to recover any compensation. Partial dependents were entitled'under Section i to "a sum equal to three times the value of the benefits received by the dependents from tho deceased worke'r_during the twelve months immediately preceding the accident which caused his "death." The Court could not accede to Mr. O'Regan's contention that "benefits received" meant benefits which they were entitled to receive. That construction would bring back the element, of uncertainly and speculation which tho Legislature apparently sought to exclude. I So far as the widow was concerned, however, the Court thought there might I be a total dependency. There was a presumption that she was a total dependent on her husband's earnings, and it was questionable whether that prcsumptiou had been rebutted. Tho case would be adjourned to allow of this point being argued at the next sitting of the Court in Wellington,' and if necessary evidence could bo called to show in what way tho widow and children had been maintained since the agreement for separation was signed! DUTIES OF A ROAD OVERSEER. WHEN THEY BEGIN. In another case tho claim was a sequel to the death of Alexander M'Hutchon, county clerk, rato collector, treasurer, and road overseer to the Castlepoint County Council. On November 25, 1910, while driving from his home at Whakataki to Tenui, where tho county office was situated, in order to meet his foreman there and mako an inspection of the Langdale roads with him, deceased met with a fatal accident. Something went wrong with tho harness, and deceased-was thrown out and killed. The executors of tho will claimed in the Arbitration. Court .£SOO compensation and X2O medical-and'. funeral expenses from the Castlepoint County Council, to bo paid to his widow and adopted daughter. : -Mr. T. Jordan appeared for plaintiffs,, and Mr. E. B. Brown for defendant.

It was argued for the defence that the accident did not occur in the course of employment, and was not duo to the employment.

The judgment, signed by Mr. Justice Sim, look the. view that whenever tho deceasod was travelling along one. of the. roads in connection with his employment ho was at work under his employment— unlike an ordinary servant who had to travel along a road to reach the sphere of his work. The deceased's employment began as soon as ho started along a country road, and the fatality, therefore, occurred during the' course- of his employment. It also arose out of that employment. He was travelling 'on tho business of the council in'the'recognised and proper manner, and doing part of tho work that ho was emnloved to do. Judgment was entered for JJSOO compensation and .£2O funeral expenses; the .£SOO to be paid into Court to await tho further order, of llio Court; an affidavit to be' filed showing whether deceased's adopted daughter was legally adopted, and, if so, whether sho was a dependent, and whether there were other dependents besides tho widow; plaintiffs to submit proposals for tho allocation of tho compensation money; defendants to pay 15 guineas costs with disbursements and witnesses' expenses. NOT WORKER, BUT CONTRACTOR. NO COMPENSATION. In the other ease the claim arose from the accidental death of John M'Auliffe, who worked as a. nightman for the Corporation of Temuka, under an agreement.. While returning from his-work'at 5 p.m. with his tools in his cart ho was delayed a few minutes speaking to a friend, and ho picked him up while, crossing a railway line, and was cut down by a train. The question ou which tho caso turned was: Whether the deceased was a worker within the meaning of tho Workers' Compensation Act, or a contractor? This was argued by Mr. .1. W. Macdonald for tli© Public Trusteo as administrator of the. estate, and Sir. W. H. D. Bell for the defendant corporation. The Court decided that deceased was a contractor, not a worker. There was nothing in the contract giving the council a right to the nersonal services.of the doceased. If he had pleased, ho could have done all the work by deputy. The work had to bo done to the satisfaction of the overseer, and tho nightsoil had to bo removed at specified periods, and between the hours of 11 p.m. and 4 a.m. Subject to these restrictions, tho deceased had a free hand as to tho timo and manner "of performing tho work._ Plaintiff, being not a. servant,, but an independent contractor, was not entitled to recover any compensation under tho Act. Judgment for defendant, with costs 7 guineas.