WRONG DEFENDANT?

Dominion, Volume 27, Issue 35, 4 November 1933, Page 8

WRONG DEFENDANT?

Peculiar Position Arises in Compensation Claim TWO SHIPPING COMPANIES A peculiar position arose in a compensation case in the Arbitration Court yesterday, when it was discovered, during the hearing of evidence, that plaintiff had possibly commenced an action against' the wrong defendant. After conferring with counsel, Mr. Justice Frazer adjourned the case sine die to enable a settlement to be made. John Patrick Walshe, Wellington, waterside worker, stated that, when employed as a casual worker by the Shaw, Savill and Albion Co., Ltd., on August 26. 1933, he was hit on the right leg by a carcase of frozen pork which was being loaded into the Mahaua at Wellington. As a result he had become permanently totally incapacitated for work. His average weekly earnings at the time of the accident were not less than £5/13/8, and compensation had been paid up to October 4. Plaintiff now claimed from the company a weekly payment of £3/15/9, computed into a lump sum, for th© period of disability. The statement of defence admitted the circumstances of the accident, and suggested that, following on an operation for a misplaced cartilege. plaintiff should be fit for work within three months. Therefore, on October 18, the company had offered to pay three months’ compensation, making a total of £49/4/9. This amount, it was stated, the company was still willing to pay. However, during the hearing of medical evidence, it was stated that plaintiff’s injury, a badly bruised knee, had been treated, and he had been pronounced fit to return to work. He did so, on October 9, but injured the cartilege of his knee while working on the Remuera, a New Zealand Shipping Company boat. He reported back to the Shaw, Savill Company, whose agent said he thought his complaint was due to a recurrence of the injury received, on the Mahana. Actually, from the evidence given, it was stated that it appeared to have been due to a fresh accident caused by his knee giving out when pulling on a heavy case. In such, circumstances, it was further stated, the liability appeared to be on the New Zealand Shipping Co., Ltd., and not on the Shaw, Savill Company. Counsel for the defendant company asked leave to amend the statement of defence bydenying responsibility. “The New Zealand Shipping Company must be brought into the matter,” said his Honour, “and we propose to adjourn the case sine die to enable the matter to be settled. To assist in obtaining a settlement we will indicate what the judgment of the court would have been on the evidence before it. We say this entirely without prejudice to tlie New Zealand Shipping Company’s right to produce fresh evidence in the future. “Plaintiff would have been allowed another week to make arrangements to go into hospital.” his Honour continued. “If he agreed to the operation he, would be given comjiensation in weekly payments until he was right. If. however, he decided against the operation, which all the doctors agreed was necessary, he would receive compensation for a period of 13 weeks.” Mr. F. W. Ongley appeared for plaintiff. and Mr. 11. E. Evans for the defendant company. ...