WORKMAN'S DEATH

Evening Post, Volume CXVI, Issue 90, 13 October 1933, Page 9

WORKMAN'S DEATH

LIABILITY OF THE CROWN

Legal argument was continued in the Court of Appeal today in the case in •which the question is raised whether Edwin John Solomon, who w,as'killed by accident at the Waitaki hydroelectric works in May, 1932, was an independent contractor or a servant of the Grown. Solomon was one of a party of men working under a cooperative contract, and on the claim for £2000 damages brought by his widow, Minnie Solomon,- of Timaru, Mr. Justice Kennedy held that there was evidence upon which the jury could have found negligence against a fellow-worker of the deceased, but that the party to which Solomon had belonged were independent contractors, and therefore there was no cause of action against the Crown. Continuing his argument on behalf of the appellant, Minnie Solomon, Mr. P. J. O'Eegan submitted that even if the men called themselves contractors that was nothing more than prima facio evidence which had to be supported by the circumstances of the employment, la the case before the Court there was no question of payment by a lump sum, which was usually a characteristic of an independent contract. Tito men were constantly working in the presenco of the engineer, who had the right to take them off the contract at any time and put ih em on to other work. Counsel submitted that the ex-j istenee of that right was a strong argument in- favour of a contract of service rather than an independent contract. Replying to Mr. Justice Smith, Mr. O'Eegan said that the object of a cooperative contract, was to eliminate tho profit of a middleman or independent contractor and provide the men with a fair rate of wages, the current rate ruling in the district. The following main submissions were made by Mr. W. ■D. Campbell, who, with Mr. J. Prendeville, appeared for the Crown: (1) That the appellant must establish the relationship which she alleged existed between the Crown and the members of the party from the original agreement alone; (2) that tho relationship created by the agreement was that of principal and contractor, and not that of master and servant; and (3) that the evidence objected to, even if admitted, did not alter the relationship created by the agreement. (Proceeding.)