WRECK VICTIM

Dominion, Volume 25, Issue 171, 15 April 1932, Page 8

WRECK VICTIM

Claim for Compensation WIDOW NONSUITED Engineer on Progress Claiming £lOOO from the Holm Shipping Co., Ltd., the owners of the Frogross, as compensation for the death of her husband, Thomas Simpson, the engineer, who was drowned when the vessel was wrecked at Ohiro Bay in May last, Mrs. Ethel May Simpson was nonsuited in the Arbitration Court yesterday.. The statement of claim set out that Mr. Simpson was a worker employed by defendant as an engineer on the Progress and was drowned when the vessel was wrecked. His widow was sping as a person entitled, under the provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Act It was claimed that his death was an accident arising out of his employment, and that plaintiff and her daughter, aged 17, were wholly dependent upon the earnings of deceased. Plaintiff claimed judgment for £lOOO compensation, to be divided between herself and her daughter in such shares as the court thought fit, £25 funeral expenses, and the costs of the action. The statement of defence was a general denial of the claims, and further said that deceased was not a “worker” within the meaning of the Workers Compensation Act. Several witnesses gave evidence as to the type of work done by Mr. Simpson on the vessel. Addressing the court, counsel for the Holm Company submitted that for the claim to succeed it must establish that the primary duties of a certificated marine engineer consisted of manual labour. He claimed that the court had to consider what was the dominant factor in his employment, and he submitted that it was professional skill and responsibility. . The solicitor for the widow argued that the amount of manual, labour which deceased had done m his ordinary duties entitled him to come within the Act

Counsel for both-sides cited authorities and cases in support of their submissions, and after retirement the court upheld the nonsuit point Delivering judgment, Mr. Justice Frazer said that Mr. Simpson’s position on the vessel was that of an officer, who in charge of the engines and engine-room department. He was in command, under the master, and his skill was a very important factor in his employment; his skill had been subjected to and had passed a test required by the Board of Trade. “In our opinion, although deceased performed a considerable amount of manual work, his substantial employment was to take charge of the engineroom, firstly, and to exercise skill, control, and responsibility,” he said. Such mere manual work as was required was incidental. Judgment was given for defendant, with leave to apply for costs.