WIDOW AWARDED COMPENSATION

Northern Advocate, 27 October 1936, Page 3

WIDOW AWARDED COMPENSATION

tSpecial to “Northern Advocate/*! HAMILTON, This Day.

In a reserved judgment of the Arbitration Court upon the claim of Mrs Edith Warnock, of Taumarunui, who proceeded against the King Box Company, Limited, Taumarunui, as the result of the death of her husband, John Charles Warnock, who was fatally injured at the company’s factory on March 3, compensation amounting to £748 and medical and funeral expenses of £32 are awarded to the plaintiff, Mr P. J. O’Regan, of Wellington, appeared for Mrs Warnock, and Mr J. Hore for the defendant company.

Deceased began work at the company’s plant the day before the accident. One of his duties was to rake the sawdust from a pit below one of the saws. The pit extended about lift under the saw bench and Warnock was told to make a rake with a handle about Bft 6in long to draw the sawdust away. Soon after work had commenced on March 3 the deceased was; found lying in the pit unconscious and suffering from an apparently slight head wound. It was agreed that the wound on Warnock’s head had been caused by a blow from a bolt in the travelling belt. The deceased was taken to the Taumarunui Hospital, where he remained unconscious for four weeks and ultimately died. The company claimed that it was not part of the deceased’s duty to get into the saw pit and that the accident was due to his act in exposing himself td. unnecessary risk. The foreman of the company gave evidence that he had warned deceased not to enter the pit. The Court found that the reasonable inference to be drawn from the whole of the surrounding circumstances was that Warnock, finding that he was unable to reach the sawdust at the farther end, had stooped underneath the bench far enough for his head to come into contact with the protruding metal studs of the travelling belt. It was not satisfied that a clear instruction forbidding Warnock to go beneath the bench was. issued to him at any time. The Court also found that it was the deceased’s duty to keep the trench clear, that "his implement was not long enough to enable him to do this effectively, and that his action in stooping to reach further was, under the cirj cumstances, natural and reasonable.