£104 COMPENSATION

Grey River Argus, 6 September 1939, Page 10

£104 COMPENSATION

FOR PUBLIC WORKS EMPLOYEE. Compensation amounting to \ £lO4 has been awarded "by the Arbitration Court to Gerald Neame, of Kumara, 17, labourer, lor injuries which he sustained while in the employment of the Public Works Department. On March 30, 1938, suppliant was engaged with his father and uncle in clearing a slip on the Christchurch road near Kumara. At the end of the day’s work, suppliant mounted a horse belonging to his father and, hired by the Public Works Department in connection with the work, in order to take it home, as had been his usual practice. In the act of mounting, suppliant fell and injured his right arm. The case was heard during the recent sitting of the Arbitration Court, in Greymouth. Mr. W. Douglas Taylor appeared for suppliant and Mr. F. A. Kitchingham for the Crown. In the course of its judgment the Court said that the point to be determined was whether the accident arose out of and in the course of suppliant’s employment. It was true that it occurred within the limits of the time for which he was paid, but there was ample authority that this circumstance, in itself, was not sufficient. When suppliant took the horse away, he was acting as his father’s agent, and not as a servant of the Public Works Department. There was, however, another way of looking at the matter. Did the accident arise when the suppliant was in the| course of leaving his employer’s premises, or had he already left .those premises. Counsel for respondent claimed that he had already left, because he had got beyond the boundary of the slip at which the party had that day been working, and because, so far as the Department was concerned, it was a matter of indifference whether he took the horse or not, and, if he took the horse, whether he rode it or led it. This’might be true, but the fact remained that it was intended by all parties, including John Connor (the 1 Department’s foreman), that suppliant should take the horse home, and to ride it, was the only reasonable way of doing that, and the method which suppliant had adopted on other days. The judgment continued, ‘ upon the evidence, suppliant chose the nearest spot to the actual slip, at which the men had that day been working, which was suitable for mounting the horse, and we hold, as a fact, that this spot, was, in the circumstances, within the portion of the public highway which constituted, for the time being, the employer’s premises. Mounting a horse within those premises presented certain difficulties, and this accident arose from those difficulties. We, therefore, find that the accident was occasioned by risk in consequence of suppliant’s work, as distinguished from a risk to which a 1 members of the public were liable. It is admitted that, at the time of the accident, suppliant’s wages were £4 a week. Upon the evidence we think he is entitled to six months full compensation. Thft amounts to Judgment was accordingly given for that amount, with costs.

Labourer’s Claim MAJORITY VERDICT FOR CROWN In the case, Stanley Tuckey Watson (Mr. W. Douglas Taylor), of Greymouth, labourer v. His Majesty the King (Mr. F. A.’Kitchingham), also a claim for compensation against the Public Works Department, judgment was given for the Crown on a majority verdict. At the time of the accident, suppliant was employed as a linesman by the Department. On January 16, 1939, suppliant was riding his motor cycle to work at Rocky Point, and came into collision with another vehicle. As a result of the accident, suppnant suffered injuries, and he claimed compensation from the Department, on the ground that the accident arose out of and in the course of, his employment. In the course of its judgment, the Court said that the fact that the accident occurred during travelling time for which suppliant,was paid, was not sufficient to bring it within the scope of his 'employment. Suppliant relied upon the circumstances that, at the time, he was obeying an instruction from the Department’s engineer to bring his tools. In carrying the tools to his job, suppliant was doing something that was necessary for the accomplishment of his work, . but this did not suffice. He was not in any way under the control of the Department at the time. All that the Department was interested in was that his tools should be there in the morning. When and how and by what means he got them, was entirely his own affair. Judgment would therefore be for respondent, with leave reserved to move for costs. Mr. A. L. Monteith (employees’ assessor), dissented from this judgment. In his view, suppliant had received instructions to bring his tools, and was, therefore, in the course of his employment at the time of the accident.