SUPREME COURT

Dominion, Volume 10, Issue 3096, 29 May 1917, Page 9

SUPREME COURT

SAWMILL WORKER'S CASE

£1000 DAMAGES CLAIMED

In tho Supremo Court yesterday His Honour Mr. Justico Hosking and a jury of twelve heard ;m action for damages brought by William Bowloy (sawmill worker, of • HihiteM, now. , 'laihupo) against W. Booth and Co., Ltd. (sawmill proprietors, Wellington). Tho cliuni was for .£IOOO damages, and arose out of «n accident that happened to plaintiff while he was in tho defendant company's employ. Mr. P. .T. O'Uegan appeared for plaintiff and Mr. T. S. Neave and Mr. Ward for tho dofendant company. Plaintiff in his statamont of claim alleged that on December 5, whilo in tho employ of tho defendant company, ho whs driving a truck, laden with tramway sleepen) and drawn by three horses, along a newly-constructed portion of tho defendant company's sawmill tramway at Hihitahi, when tho truck collided with a tree stump standing oloso to the tramway. Plaintiff was thrown to tho ground and jammed between the truck and iinothor treo stump close to that with which the truck collided. Ho sustained serious and permanent injuries, including multiple fractures of the lower jaw, iv fracture of tho upper jaw, serious impairment of tho left articulation, of the lower jaw, serious deflection of the septum of ■ the nose, tho loss of his ' teeth,, and other injuries. Plaintiff had been totally disablod ■since tho accident, and was advised that ho would continue to bo disabled for im indefinite timo. Plamtift alleged that the company, in constructing tho tramway was guilty of necligonco in that it did not remove tho. treo stumps or level them with, tho ground; that tho failure to romovo the stumps was unreasonable and due to lack ot proper supervision and control on the part of tho company in constructing, the tramway; that inasmuch as thore had been previously no traffic over the tramway at or about the locality at which the accident occurred, plaintiff had no opportunity of knowing of the risk ot accident. The company admitted liability to pay compimsation under the Workers' Compensation Act, but not to pay damages. Plaintiff gave credit for payments made, but contended that, owing to the severity of "his injuries, compensation did not afford him an adequate remedy. Ho thereforo claimed XIOOO damages. . The defendant company contended that the tramway was properly constructed; that plaintiff was gnilt.T of contributory negligenoe in the management of tho loading and driving of tho truck, and could by exerciso of reasonal>le care havo avoided tho accident; that vthe accident was.due to the negligence ot fellow servants of plaintiff in loading the truck in the way in which they v'lid;i that plaintiff was limited to a clairji of .-ESOO in accordance with the Workers , Compensation Act; that plaintiff had agreed with tho company for the settlement of all claims arising out of tho acciijent by paymont of the allowances specified in tho said Act; that the company had made tho payments required h>/ the agreemont, and that by reason of tho agreement and payment plaintiff -w\is debarred from bringing any action' tor damages at common law. The enso waa partly heard and itnen adojurned till to4ay.