WATERSIDE WORKER’S INJURIES

Dominion, Volume 23, Issue 70, 16 December 1929, Page 13

WATERSIDE WORKER’S INJURIES

AWARDED £550 DAMAGES

An action to determine the extent of the liability of the Wellington Patent Slip Company, Ltd., in regard to payment of damages to John Sheriff, a waterside worker, who had suffered injuries to his head during the course of his work, for the company, was heard before the Chief Justice (Hon. M. Myers) in the Supreme Court on Friday. Plaintiff was represented by Mr. F. W. Ongley, with him Mr. C. H. Arndt, and Mr. O. A. L. Treadwell appeared for the defendant company.The amount claimed was £lOOO. The defendant company, while admitting liability, disputed the permanent nature of the injuries, as alleged by plaintiff. The sum of £5O had been paid into Court by the company, which contended that that sum was ail plaintiff was entitled to. Plaintiff described the accident and said that he had done no work since. He admitted that he had received ten weeks’ compensation, totalling £33/10/-. He said that when he walked or stooped, he had a reeling in the head. . He had to stop and rest on such occasions. He also stated that apart from suffering from giddiness his nose bled frequently. After medical evidence had been heard, His Honour stated that he thought the defendants were quite justified in the somewhat peculiar circumstances of the case in requiring the matter to be dealt with by the Court. The fact that they had defended the matter and had not succeeded, as it would appear later, did not for one moment mean that they had been unfair to the. plaintiff, who, he was satisfied, was entitled to recover. There seemed to be no other conclusion but that plaintiff’s present condition was due to the accident. It was quite plain that the defendants had not disproved the plaintiff’s case, and, in consequence, plaintiff was entitled to recover, the negligence having been admitted by defendants. His Honour also intimated that he was satisfied that plaintiff had suffered severe injury and was no longer able to work at his former occupation, and there was a possibility that he would never be able to do so again. “I think, therefore, concluded His Honour, “that the case is one where justice would probably be done bv awarding the sum of £ouo, less £33/10/- paid under The Workers Compensation Act.”