CLAIM SUCCEEDS

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume 80, 7 April 1945, Page 2

CLAIM SUCCEEDS

£936 COMPENSATION ALLOWED

DEATH DUE TO ACCIDENT RESERVED JUDGMENT IN BAINHAM CASE In a reserved decision on a case heard in the Compensation Court at Nelson on 6th and 7th March, Mr Justice P. J. O'Regan, gave judgment for plaintiff, Winnie Mears, formerly of Bainham and now of Rai Valley, who on behalf of herself and five children claimed compensation from Andrew Haldane, of Bainham, farmer, alleging that her husband, Alfred Mears, died on Monday, 12th July, 1943, as the result of injury by accident arising out of his employment on the previous Saturday. The compensation allowed was £936, with costs.

Mr C. R. Fell, of Nelson, appeared for plaintiff and Mr A. N. Haggitt, of Dunedin, for defendant.

“On Saturday, 10th July. Mears left home at or about 8 a.m., and walked about three-fourths of a mile to the defendant’s homestead, his intention being to drive Mr Haldane’s motorUuck to a riverbed property of his, known as ‘the inland,’ about 10 miles distant, where he was to mow rushes,” stated the judgment. “Plaintiff drove the truck about a mile and picked up Philip Shandon Woolf, another farmer, also employed by the defendant, who accompanied Mears. Mears arrived at Woolf’s home about 8.30, and on arrival complained of pains in the head and that one eye was watering. Arrived at their destination the two men fell to work with their scythes, and Woolf states that during the afternoon Mears more than once complained that the pain was getting worse and that he felt ‘as if someone had given him a smack in the eye.’ As a result of the unfortunate man’s condition, work ceased early in the afternoon, and Woolf noticed that as Mears drove homeward he was quieter than usual. On reaching the Haldane homestead his employer saw that the left eye was bloodshot, and enquired what was wrong, to which deceased replied that he thought he had a cold in the eye, and defendant remarked that it probably was eye-blight from which he had himself suffered. Deceased walked on to his own home as usual, and on his arrival there ais wife, noticing the eye condition, en-1 quired what was the matter. Her husband replied that he did not know, but that he felt as though he had had ‘a bang in the eye.’ On looking into the

eye plaintiff could see nothing wrong, and she suggested bathing it. He took the evening meal as usual, listened to the radio, and husband and wife retired to bed about 9 p.m. His wife wakened about 3 o’clock on the Sunday morning, in consequence of deceased moving, but after she had lighted the candle he fell back on the pillow and apparently slept again, out without speaking. He disturbed his wife again at 6 o’clock, and she rose then and lighted the fire, but, though she spoke to him several times, her husband made no answer. Thus it would appear certain that he was then unconscious. and Mrs Mears, becoming alarmed, telephoned for Dr.. Bydder, who was at Takaka. 35 miles away. That gentleman arrived about noon and found the su'Verer unconscious, and after getting the history as fully as possible from the plaintiff, diagnosed the case as one of a bleeding subarachnoid aneurysm. The symptoms were not inconsistent with the more usual type of cerebral haemorrhage, but Dr. Bydder excluded that, mainly because Mears was only 42 years old, which is early in life for generalised arteriosclerosis. Another factor influencing his conclusion, however, was that the blood pressure was barely normal, and with hardened Arteries it is usually raised. “Dr. Bydder, who gave interesting and valuable evidence, remains satisfied that his original diagnosis was correct, and Professor D’Ath and Dr. Iverach, whose evidence, pending the principal hearing, was taken for the defence at Dunedin on 7th December last, having read a statement of facts provisionally arrived at between the parties, agree that such is the correct explanation of what occurred. The real question at issue, therefore, is whether the rupture of the aneurysm was due to injury by accident arising out of the employment. “Dr. J. P. S. Jamieson, who was called for the plaintiff at Nelson, gives a vivid word-picture of a basal (or subarachnoid) aneurysm which, very properly, he calls a congenital defect rather than a disease. . . . The proper course of treatment is immediate and complete rest. Even that may not ensure recovery, but it gives a patient the only | chance he has. Here Dr. Jamieson is satisfied there was a cerebral haemorrhage. the result of the rupture of a basal aneurysm. He excludes any other cause for the cerebral damage for several reasons. First, the victim had not reached the age at which one would expect arterio-sclerosis, commonly called hardening of the arteries, which, apart from actual injury, is the more frequent cause of cerebral haemorrhage. Secondly, Mears had been recently examined and passed fit for the Army. In a medical examination for the Army the arteries are invariably tested, and hence Dr. Jamieson is satisfied that there was no ordinary cerebral haemorrhage here, but that the haemorrhage was due to the rupture of a basal aneurysm. “The truck which deceased used was improvised by altering a four-cylinder Chevrolet car. The work of conversion was done at Bainham by Mr Henry Hughes, an engineer, who, since Mears’s death, has been employed by the defendant and has frequently driven it. He has told the Court that the engine is easy to start and that, although he suffers from the effects of paralysis of the right arm, he has never experienced any difficulty in cranking it. He adds that Mears, during the three years he was working for Haldane, necessarily had to start the truck on many occasions, and that he himself never heard of his having had any difficulty with it. Kenneth Leslie James, a farmer and neighbour of the defendant, has driven the truck on two occasions to ‘the island’ since the fatality, and has experienced no difficulty with the engine. The defendant himself does not drive and has never started a car, and he declines to express an opinion as to whether the truck was difficult to start, but he adds that on a cold morning he has seen deceased turning the cranking-handle when the engine ‘would not start right away.’ “Thus it is clear that on Saturday, 10th July, Alfred Mears was doing work similar to that he had been doing for ‘years. Such is usually the history in like cases —where the injury is due to some internal damage, heart disease or hernia, for example. Evidence of such facts is relevant, of course, but it cannot affect the right to compensation if injury by accident is proved. Moreover, there is the defendant’s evidence that he has seen Mears experiencing difficulty with the engine on a cold morning, and here we are dealing with a happening in the month of July.

“I have read and re-read the evidence in the present case without finding any foundation for the assumption by Professor D’Ath and Dr. Iverach that the haemorrhage had commenced before the employment began, and accordingly I must hold that the deceased died as the result of accident arising out of his employment. I have reached that conclusion, first, because 1 am satisfied that the deceased left home feeling no symtoms of distress: (a) because he did not complain to his wife as he complained within a half-hour later to Woolf, and (b) because I am satisfied that the eye condition and the headache occurred simultaneously, and that Mrs Mears must have noticed the eye if it were watering when her husband set out for work; secondly, because it is beyond question that Mears started the car, and the probabilities are that the work was a little more difficult than usual on a July morning. Whether it was difficult or not, however, he was doing the very thing likely to induce a breakdownexerting himself in a stooping position within 15 minutes after having had a meal.

"... It is common ground that when one exerts himself the blood pressure rises immediately, and, when a man is afflicted as Mears was, the sudden rise in blood pressure is the very condition likely to cause the aneurysm to rupture; thirdly and finally, whether the rupture took place during the cranking of the car or not, I am satisfied that it occurred before he reached Woolf’s homestead, and it has been settled by numerous cases that the plaintiff is not obliged to prove any special strain during the employment. The several complaints made throughout the day while Mears and Woolf were at work indicates that the leakage was continuous, and it is probable that had the injured man rested his condition would have improved. I do not think that the evidence justifies the conclusion that any sudden rupture took place before paralysis and unconsciousness supervened. Seeing that death did not occur until midnight on Monday, I agree with Dr. J. P. S. Jamieson that the probability is that the haemorrhage was slight and continuous until the fatal result ensued. Whether or not there was a slight initial leakage and a subsequent enlargement and aggravation, however, is immaterial. What matters is the initial damage, and I am satisfied that the weight of evidence justifies the inference that it arose out of the employment and occurred in the course thereof. Accordingly the plaintiff is entitled to recover.

“It appears to be common ground that the weekly earnings were not less than £4 10s, and 208 weeks, or four years’ earnings totals £936 compensation. I allow £26 5s costs, and medical witnesses’ expenses, £5 5s plus travelling expenses for Dr. Bydder, and £3 3s for Dr. Jamieson. The lay witnesses, including the plaintiff, will be entitled to expenses pursuant -to the scale prescribed by the Regulations under the Magistrate’s Court Act, and doubtless counsel will agree on these, failing

which, they will be settled by the Registrar. Thus, I allow £936 compensation and costs as stated, and, in accordance with the usual practice, I allow the plaintiff’s expenses at Dunedin as a disbursement. Judgment accordingly.”