EMPLOYERS’ LIABILITY.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CIV, Issue 12323, 13 October 1900, Page 5

EMPLOYERS’ LIABILITY.

The employers’ liability case, George Hutchison (Mr Kippenberger) v. Walter B. Scott (Mr Harper) came up for argument in- the Magistrate’s Court, before Mr R. Beetham, S.M., yesterday morning. ivtr Harper contended that the action must be brought cither under the Employers’ Liability Act or at common law. Mr Kippenberger stated that he considered, that he could recover damages under either. -Mr Harper said that Mr Scott had employed a thoroughly competent man to build the scaffold. The stay against which it was,alleged the bucket had swung had been'in a perfectly proper position, and had the bucket been pulled up carefully and steadily, no- accident, could have happened. As to the question of the hook, he thought the evidence, clearly ..established the fact that eye-hooks had been in use, and there could be no doubt that such hooks' were perfectly safe if properly used. The accidenty was solely owing to a temporary piece of carelessness on the. part of Strange, usually a competent man. The only complaints made, about the stage had been that it was in the way when the buckets were pulled in. Damages could not be recovered unless it could be shown (1) tlinfc the appliances used, were defective, or (2) that an incompetent, man had been employed. .With regard to the injuries received,. Hutchison had not been laid up for any time,-and had been nut to no expense. He had made no complaint about deafness until a long time after the accident, and had brought no proof of his previous ability to work at any great height. ■ Mr Kippenberger said that there could be no doubt that a sudden, severe blow, such as had been received by plaintiff, would have . a very shaking effect upon the nerves. Then the consciousness of his hearing being affected would increase the nervousness. As to plaintiff’s ability to work at heights, the fact that he had since been asked to cany bricks to the top of a building showed that he, had previously been able to go u- on buildings, and now lie was not able to do so. Mr Beetham said that all he was nrepared to give Hutchison was £lO and costs, so that time would be saved by settling the case without further discussion. ° Counsel agreed to. this, and judgment was given for £lO and costs £6 17s.