INJURED THUMB

Dominion, Volume 20, Issue 298, 15 September 1927, Page 13

INJURED THUMB

4 EMPLOYEE AWARDED COMPENSATION The sum of £250 damages, £33 12s. for loss of wages, and £7 medical and hospital expenses was claimed by John .McQueen Bolton, machinist, against the Victoria Laundry Company, in the .Supremo Court yesterday. The action was heard by Mr. Justice Reed, .Mr. W. Perry appeared for Bolton, and Mr. O. C. Mazengarb for tho defendant company. Bolton claimed that, as the result of tho negligent operation of a washing macl'ine by Burns, the manager of tho company, his thumb had been caught i no machine, broken, and rendered permanently useless. The machine was old, defective, and unfit for such work as it was used for. In evidence, Bolton said that on November 22 last he had been asked by tho manager to work in tho bag-wash department between 5 and fi p.m.—tho tea hour. While ho was working the machine was stopped, and ho had taken tho washed clothes out. While he was filling the machine with dirty clothes it commenced to revolve, and the door came down on top of his hand, lie bad been taken to hospital and bis injury attended to. For some weeks afterwards (until February 24) the defendant company paid him his full wages of £2 ss. par w«sk ( and for fibres w®sk» half

wages. Then ho returned to work with the company and was with them until early in April. Ho hud been told that the company would pay his hospital bills, but they had not done so. He had told them' of his intention to claim compensation, and they had replied that his hand had been injured before. This was true, but his thumb had not been injured. He now suffered much inconvenience. The defence held that the machine was new and not long installed on tho company's promises. It was denied that Holton had incurred A 7 for medical and hospital expenses, and the company said that it had become liable to pay compensation under the Workers’ Compensation Act, but on finding that this would not bo sufficient to maintain Bolton during his period of incapacity it had advanced him enough to make up his wages to their former total, .£2 55., and paid him this up to February 21. .It was submitted that his acceptance of this had discharged the company from further liability. After hearing evidence His Honour held that the company had not discharged the onus upon it. and that the accident might have resulted from detective locking of the machine. Judgment was entered for plaintiff for .£llO, with costs on tho lowest scale. ) ________