ACCIDENT AND DISMISSAL

Evening Star, Issue 18253, 18 April 1923, Page 4

ACCIDENT AND DISMISSAL

MOTOR DRIVER’S CLAIM,

EMPLOYER’S COUNTER CLAIM.

In tho Jlagistrate’s Court yesterday morning, before Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M., Reginald Hughes, moior lorry driver, claimed from Messrs C. «nd W. Shiel the sum of £a 12s 3(1, made up of a week's wages of £4 8s 6d in lieu of a week’s notice and nine and a-half hours’ overtime at 2s 6d an hour (£1 3s 9d), as prescribed by tho drivers’ award. A counter-claim was made by defendants, who alleged that on certain occasions plaintiff had negligently and unskilfully driven'a motor truck, had destroyed a whcelborrow, caused expense and trouble, and damaged l a footpath and paling fence and also tho motor truck. The amount of the counterclaim was £l6 13s 6cl. Mr J. S. Sinclair appeared for plaintiff and Mr J. B. Callan for defendants.

Mr Sinclair said that while plaintiff was driving a motor lorry, which was heavily

laden, between York place and Cargill street, | the vehicle commenced to slip backwards | downhill. Plaintiff applied the brakes, which 1 did not act, and which wore allegedly out of order to the knowledge of defendants. To avoid a cable car plaintiff backed the car into tho gutter and held it up on the footpath. It would bo shown that plaintiff used considerable skill not only in saving the lorry but also in saving the cable car and the passengers in it. Plaintiff rang up tho office, and defendant’s son came to the place and told him to put his coat, on and get his pay. That seemed a rather high-handed action. Counsel contended that the counterclaim was a spurious defence (put up to evade the payment of what was duo to j plaintiff. j Plaintiff gavo evidence, in the course of which he stated that he bad bad experience of driving with the London-General Omnibus Company and with tho army in Prance. When he was given charge of tho lorry ia I question ho had reported to defendant’s son i that tho brakes were noC good, and defen- ! J ant's son replied that he was quite awaro , of that.' The lorry was a six-ton vehicle, ; and on tho day of the occurrence carried a load of bricks. After the mishap defendant’s son came up in an excited condition and told' him, without asking for any explanation, to get his coat on and come i back tho next day for his pay. However, ! he was given a job tho same day and too.k-1 the same lorry, without efficient brakes, to ! cany several” loads. Plaintiff denied tho charges made against bim by defendants in the counter-claim.

In reply to Mr Gallan, witness agreed that in London and France the roads were very free from bills as compared with .the roads here. The accident did not happen through his changing Ins gear on the way up tho hill. To let. the car run straight back wouldhave been unsafe, as witness considered it would have gone down the hill to the Octagon. In giving judgment, Mr Bartholomew said that there were only two points in connection with the case. Counsel had abandoned the counter-claim, and very properly. It followed on sum maty dismissal that was not justified that plaintiff was entitled to damages for that dismissal. The question was what amount ho was entitled to. The maximum damages would bo tho earnings for tho period of one week in this case; not as payment, but by way of compensation, and not as a penalty on the employer. That being so, plaintiff had suffered as to a day and a-half during which ha had no work. If tho employee had nob obtained other employment he would have been entitled to a full week’s wages. All the plaintiff could recover was the actual less ho had sustained for a certain period. With regard to overtime, the position was unsatisfactory, because defendants had not fulfilled the duties cast upon them. He (Mr Bartholomew) must hold that plaintiff was entitled to recover for overtime. Judgment was given for plaintiff for £1 4s wages, and for £1 3s 9d for overtime, Die costs being £5 11s. Judgment was also given for costs' 5 (£2 2s) in favor of defendants on the counter-claim.