A Broken Leg

Manawatu Times, Volume 63, Issue 79, 4 April 1938, Page 8

A Broken Leg

FARMER CLAIMS COMPENSATION FROM FARMER Per Press Association. WELLINGTON, April 2. Judgment was delivered by the Couri of Arbitration yesterday in the case in which Horace lan Simson, farmer, of Wellington, claimed compensation from Sir Kenneth Douglas, Darrister, Wellington, for a broken leg he sustained on November 11, 1936, while working for defendant. At the hearing, defendant denied liability, alleging that the relationship of master and servant did not exist. After reviewing the evidence, the judgment of the court, which was delivered by Mr. Justice O’Regan, stated: “The evidence shows that, when the accident occurred, plaintiff was riding one of defendant’s horses, and he was, in fact, rounding up the cattle he had purchased on behalf of defendant when the animal stumbled and rolled on plaintiff, causing a comminuted fracture of both bones of the right leg. and defendant admits the plaintiff was in his service at the time the accident happened, and was acting within the scope of his authority. As usually happens when friends have quarrelled, the parties are very much at variance and there are many details in respect of which their evidence disagrees. “There is, and can be, no dispute, however, about the main facts namely, (1) that, although plaintiff went to reside on the property in the first instance as the guest of defendant, the relationship later became that of master and servant, though the rate of remuneration had not been agreed upon. This is shown by (2) that on October 28 defendant took out a policy of indemnity against the liability imposed by the Workers’ Compensation Act; (3) that, when he visited plaintiff in the hospital, he brought for completion the formal claim-form required by the insurance company; (4) that, when he obtained the keys of the house from the late tenant, he handed them to plaintiff, and at or about the sam« time directed another employee on the property, Robertson, who also had the keps to an outbuilding, to hand them to plaintiff; (5) that after the accident, when plaintiff had returned to the homestead, he selected a housekeeper from Hastings with defendant’s authority; (6) replying to a question from the Court, defendant said, ‘I think h» possibly would be in my employment if he was doing something for me. He was doing something for me.' The defendant’s evidence as to how he arrived at the estimate of £328, as wages for the ensuing year, is vague, but it appears evident that he intended it to cover the wages of at least three employees. “We are of opinion that on the foregoing facts a contract of service certainly existed, and although the terms of remuneration had not been agreed upon, we hold that the Court has jurisdiction in such circumstanecs to fix what it considers a reasonable remuneration inasmuch as the Workers’ Compensation Act cannot be so futile as to deny compensation merely for the reason that the accident happened before the parties had actually agreed on the rate. Accordingly, we fix the rate of remuneration at £4 a week. The only questions the Court was asked to decide were whether there was a contract of service, and, if so, the rate of remuneration. Doubtless the parties will agree on the amount of compensation, but, if not, the matter in issue may be referred to the Court.” Plaintiff was allowed £7 7/- costs. At the hearing, Mr. A. P. Corry appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. O. C. Mazengarb for defendant.