"AN ADDED PERIL" WORKER'S CLAIM FAILS

Evening Post, Volume CXVI, Issue 113, 9 November 1933, Page 18

"AN ADDED PERIL" WORKER'S CLAIM FAILS

A claim for compensation was heard in tho Arbitration Court yesterday. The plaintiff was. Michael Patrick Gorry, and the defendants were-tho Wellington Gas Co., Ltd. The statement of claim set out that on-May 9, 1933,. plaintiff while in the employ of the company, went to a shed connected with the Gas, Company's premises at Miramar, known as the subway shed, for the purpose of getting his coat and'two sacks to put into the company's' relort house to ' dry, and while there he fell into a hole, and sustained internal injury necessitating his removal to.the Wellington.Hospital, where he was operated upon for ruptured spleen. . Pleurisy developed as the result of infection and injury to the lung. Plaintiff claimed ■ a weekly pay* nient of £2 13s 4d: for- total incapacity for the period of incapacity computed into a lump sum, and costs. The statement of defence denied that plaintiff suffered an injury; by an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. The defendant company, in the alternative, said that if plaintiff had .been injured: he had now recovered,, and was not .totally temporarily incapacitated for work as alleged. ..... Mr. F. W. Ongley-appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. Evan Parry for the defendant company.1 ' ; ■ . Counsel for tho company said the only question at issue was whether the accident arose out of and in tho course of plaintiff's employment. The manager of the company's works at Miramar said there • was ' a cloakroom provided for coats' of the permanent staff. The so-called ■ subway shed was the vontilating^end of a tunnel, was a dangerous place, and'no one had a right to be thero^at all.l ' ■ ■ . In delivering the judgment of, the Court, Mr. Justice Frazer said that plaintiff,' without the knowledge of the company, incurred an, added peril, m that he made use of'aplace he was not authorised tomakeuse of, and neglected a place which :was 'provided by the company for employees to place their coats' in. Judgment was given for the company, with ■£ 8 8s costs. ■