QUARTZ MINER’S RIGHT TO DAMAGES

Dominion, Volume 27, Issue 226, 21 June 1934, Page 2

QUARTZ MINER’S RIGHT TO DAMAGES

/ Injured in Waihi Accident

AMOUNT LIMITED TO £lOOO, FULL COURT HOLDS

Under the provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Act, 1922, the amount of damages recoverable by an injured worker, in the case of a non-fatal accident arising out of negligence on the part of a fellow-servant, is limited to £lOOO. In February last, a claim for £2254 damages was brought in the Warden's Court, Waihi, against the Waihi Gold Mining Company, Ltd., by reason of injuries received by John Hislop Gordon, quartz-miner, following an accident at Waihi on July 26, 1933, when a cage containing 13 men, while being lowered into a mine, got out of control, and fell some 1500 feet, injuring all the men mote or less seriously. The Warden's Coprt assessors awarded Gordon £l5OO in compensation for severe bodily injuries received, including aggravation of an osteoarthritic condition of the vertebrae preceding the accident, but the goldmining company contended that the provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act, limiting the amount of damages recoverable to £lOOO, applied, and the question was remitted to the Supreme Court, Auckland, by the Warden’s Court, for its opinion, and Mr. Justice Ostler held on March 22 that the limitation did apply. The case reached a further stage yesterday, when the question was submitted to the Full Court for its opinion, and after legal argument, the court unanimously held that the limitation of £lOOO did apply, and it dismissed the appeal with 25 guineas costs. The court comprised the Chief Justice (Sir Michael Myers), Mr. Justice Reed, and Mr. Justice Johnston. Mr. P. J. O’Regau appeared for appellant, and Mr. H. P. Richmond, with him Mr. F. L. D. West, both of Auckland, for respondent company. Extraordinary Accident.

Mr. O’Regan said on July 26 last year, an extraordinary accident -jc-. curred at Waihi, when a cage containing 13 men, which was being lowered into a mine in the usual way, suddemy got out of control. Luckily, before it reached the bottom, it stopped in theshaft, for if it had gone to the bottom, all the men would hare been killed. As it was, all were more or less seriously injured, the most serious injury being two broken legs. lu counsel’s opinion, the only competent tribunal to deal with claims for c •mpeusatibn arising out of the accident was the Warden's Court, which had, iu fact, already disposed of all claims, save two. Eleven of the claims bad been disposed of for sums considerably less than £lOOO, but In the present case the Warden's Court awarded £l5OO damages. There was special provision in Mining Acts that accidents occurring in or about a mine raised the presumption of negligence on the part of the owner, but he was satisfied that the accident was not due to any defect of machinery, but to negligence ou the part of the man in charge of the engine. The only question before the Warden's Court was medical evidence to determine the quantum of damages. Judgment of the Court.

in delivering the judgment of the court, the Chief Justice said that the burden of Mr. O’ROgau's argument was apparently that sub-section 3 of-section 295 of the Mining Act, 1926, was superfluous and meaningless. In h's opinion it was neither one nor the other. In the sub-section, such provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Act, 1922, as were applicable, must be read into it. Section 67 of the Workers’ Compensation Act, 1922, he thought, was applicable in that way, and it was intended in eases such as the present, that the maximum sum recoverable by way of damages in one cause of action, was £lOOO.

It was also suggested during the course of the argument that sub-section 4 of section 295 of the Act was meaningless. the Chief Justice said. He could not accept that suggestion either. It was quite plain that there might be claims for compensation for injuries or death by accident under an Act other than the Mining Act, for example. the Workers' Compensation Act, 1922, itself. He agreed with the view taken by Mr. Justice Ostler, and in his opinion the appeal should be dismissed. .Mr. Justice Reed and Mr. Justice Johnston concurred also in the Chief Justice’s view.