COMPENSATION AWARDED.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LIII, Issue 16300, 5 August 1916, Page 9

COMPENSATION AWARDED.

WORKMAN'S BROKEN LEG.

INJURY WHILE REPAIRING ROAD

A claim for compensation under the Workers' Compensation Act, 1908, occupied the attention of the Arbitration Court yesterday. His Honor Mr. Justice Stringer presided, and the assessors were Messrs. W. Scott and J. A. McCullough. David Jones, labourer, of Manunui (Mr. F. W. Shortland), claimed £19, and such other relief as the Court thought fit, from William Marshall, contractor, of Manunui (Mr. R. B. Williams). The circumstances which led up to the action, according to the statement of claim, were that Jones was employed by Marshall on September 25, 1915, and while engaged in driving a cart and spreading gravel on a road he was knocked down. His right leg was broken, and he was incapacitated for 19 weeks. Since his recovery from the accident plaintiff had been able to do light work only, and to earn not more than £1 a week.

Ihe plaintiff gave evidence that he -was employed by defendant to do sanitary work and other odd jobs. Pursuant to instructions received, he took a cart and horse and rilled in a hole on a road which he used. While occupied in this work he was injured. The defendant did not pay him regularly, and he obtained judgment in the Magistrate's Court for wages due. Ihe defendant deposed that he employed plaintiff in connection with a sanitary contract. He gave him no instructions to repair the road in question, and plaintiff was not expected to do it. In answer to His Honor defendant said he had employed plaintiff for seven weeks I when the accident happened. He could i not remember what payments he had made to him. * j

In giving the decision of the Court His Honor said neither of the parties had given his evidence satisfactorily. The. plaintiff had failed to prove thai he had been given instructions to do the road work. There was no doubt, however, that the road in question was used bv plaintiff, and that the work of repairing it was within the scope of his employment, lie had not been forbidden to do the work, and it was not so remote from his usual employment as made it unreasonable tor Jam to do it, In these circumstances plaintiff was entitled to recover compensation. Judgment would be given for plaintiff for £31—£19 claimed and 10s a week from February 1 to Julv 31—with 7, 5s costs and witnesses' expenses and disbursements.