INJURED BY FALL

Dominion, Volume 24, Issue 148, 19 March 1931, Page 6

INJURED BY FALL

Claim for Compensation SHAREMILKER OR WORKER? A claim for compensation was brought in the Arbitration Court yesterday by James Davidson, sharcmilker, of Dyerville, Martinborougb, against Henry Daysh, fanner, of Dyerville, for injuries received in an accident on May 13, 1928. Davidson was thrown from a horse while removing some of defendant’s dairy cows aud contracted injuries to his head aud spine which bad disabled him until the present time. Plaintiff claimed a weekly payment.of £4 from the date of the accident, £1 for medical expenses, and such further relief as. the court might deem just. Mr. P. S. K. Macassey, with him Mr. H. Lawson (Featherston), appeared, for plaintiff, and Mr. H. F. O’Leary for defendant. Mr. Macassey, in opening, said that th.e real question involved was as to whether plaintiff was a worker within the meaning of the Workers Compensation Act. Upon the day after the accident defendant told plaintiff and bis wife and son that they would be all right, as he had them covered by insurance. Defendant had all along admitted liability and, having done so, could not now plead that plaintiff was not a worker within the meaning of the Workers Compensation Act. Counsel produced the correspondence which had passed between the Atlas Insurance Company aud plaintiff’s solicitor, and said it was an extraordinary thing that, after haying admitted liability, the insurance company should have at last turned round and disclaimed all liability iu the case. In regard to the agreement, Mr. Macassey proceeded, Daysh was described as the employer and Davidson as the employee. ■. Looking at the agreement as a whole, it was clear that plaintiff had no share in the land or stock, and was simply there to milk the cows for defendant. Caroline Davidson, wTfe of plaintiff, said that her husband had done the milking, ploughing, and fencing on the farm. Defendant frequently visited the farm and gave Davidson instructions as to what was to be done. On one occasion the pair had a dispute, and Daysh told Davidson pointedly that he was the boss. Evidence was also given by Hector James Davidson, a son of plaintiff. Henry Daysh, defendant, admitted that from time to time he had given plaintiff instructions 'as to what had to be done upon the farm. For the defence, Mr. O’Leary said that there was no agreement that Davidson was a worker. Counsel maintained that the agreement between the parties did not come within section 18 of the Act. The court reserved its decision.