INJURED FOOT

Dominion, Volume 29, Issue 200, 21 May 1936, Page 16

INJURED FOOT

Freezing Works Accident Dominion Special Service. Palmerston North, May 20. Claiming £lOOO general and £l5l/19/2 special damages, William GeorgeJKemp, freezing works employee, of Feilding, proceeded against Thus. Borthwick and Sons (A’sia), Ltd., before Mr. Justice Ostler in the Supreme Court to-day. The claim was to recover compensation for an injury to plaintiff’s foot. Messrs. 11. R. Cooper and G. Rowe appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. L. P. Leary for defendants. . In his statement of claim plaintiff said that on May 5, 1934, while working as fitter for the firm and (testing a pig derrick his left foot was pierced by an iron pin ot' the derrick. He alleged that the injury was caused entirely through the negligence of a fellow employee. A pig derrick was a mechanical contrivance which picked up with prongs or pins the carcases of pigs and placed them on a platform. Without warning an employee released a lever operating the derrick, causing it to operate, and one of the prongs pierced plaintiff's foot. He was permanently partially disabled. Medical evidence was given by Dr. P. T. Putnam. He said the foot was very much stiffened. Plaintiff gave evidence that when the accident occurred he was holding a light for another employee who was overhauling the machine. Suddenly it started to operate and he was caught by a prong. He did not hear any warning call to stand clear. Defendants denied that another employee had been guilty of negligence and alleged that the injury was caused solely by the negligence of plaintiff in not standing clear of the derrick when told to do so. They added that if the other employee was guilty of negligence, which was denied, then plaintiff 'contributed to the accident by his own negligence. Defendants said that they had paid plaintiff compensation under the Workers’ Compensation Act for one week more than he had claimed. Plaintiff had signed a receipt in favour of defendants on March 26, 1935. discharging defendants from all claims at common law.

After hearing evidence for the defence, his Honour ruled that plaintiff had failed to make a case of negligence on the part of defendants, but nevertheless plaintiff was certainly entitled to some compensation. His Honour then retired and the amount of compensation to be paid to plaintiff was settled privately between the parties.