WIDOW’S APPEAL

Hokitika Guardian, 13 October 1933, Page 4

WIDOW’S APPEAL

AGAINST DECISION OF COURT,

CLAIM FOR. COMPENSATION

(Per Pre s s Association, Copyright).

WELLINGTON, October 12

Argument commenced in the Court of Ajocal tiiis afternoon in a case wherein Minnie Solomon, of Timaru, widow is the appellant, and the Crown tiie respondent. Appellant’s husband was killed by accident at Waitaki hydro electric works on 20th May, 1932, and ins widow instituted proceedings claiming £21)00 damages, alleging that Hie accident was due to negligence on the part of one Ran son, a. fellow worker. who was one of a party to which deceased belonged. Solomon was working will] a number of others at the bottom of a deep excavation. His work was to fill trucks with spoil. These trucks were hauled up a steep face, on top of which Rawson and another would seize them as they arrived, one pushing them further on to 1 the tip-head, while the other secured the empty trucks to a cable. On tho. occasion in question, the truck was not properly secured, with the result that it rolled down the incline, and, coming into contact with Solomon, killed him instantaneously. The claim was heard before Mr Justice Kennedy and a jury at Timaru in February last, when the jury foud the accident was due to Rawson’s negligence, and' awarded £I4OO damages—£9oo for the widow and £SOO for the child. Counsel for the Crown raised 'two. non-suit points:—',l) That there as no ovid* enee of negligence; and (2) that the party of co-operative* workers ; to" which deceased and Rawson belonged were independent contractors, and, there being no contract of service, there was no cause of action, and the Crown was not liable. The judge held that there was evidence on which the jury could find negligence, but, on the second point, agreed with the contentions of the Crown that the .party to which the deceased belonged were independent contractors, and hence the verdict could not 'stand. From this decision; the.:widow appealed. On the Bench were the Chief Jus* lice (Sir YI. Myers), Messrs Justice MacGregor,' Ostler, and; Smith. "1 1 Mr P. J. O’Regan, counsel for the propellant, said that if the Court took the view that Solomon and Rawson were independent .contractors, that would be the. end of the matter, but be submitted , that- ,the v were purely direct servants of tlie Crown. He contended that the case upon which the judge in the court below had placed much reliance was not applicable by reason of .the' different circumstances which existed in this case. , “The point, which is arousing interest in this case,” said Mr O’Regan, “is whether persons who work under co-operative contracts with the Crown as were Solomon. and Rawson, are servants of the Crown, entitled to benefits as such, or are independent contractors. „., . The Court adjourned until to-mor-row. ; ■