GIRL SEVERELY BURNED

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIV, Issue 19658, 9 June 1927, Page 13

GIRL SEVERELY BURNED

CLAIM FOR £3186 DAMAGES. % , CLOTHES IGNITED BY RADIATOR. ACCIDENT IN t TEAROOMS. [BY TELEGRAPH. OWN CORRESPONDENT. ] CHRISTCHUECH, Wednesday. The story of the simple manner in which a girl" suffered a terrible accident was heard in the Supreme Court to-day, beforo Mr. Justice Adams, when a waitress 1 claimed damages amounting to £3186 from » the proprietor of the Silver Service Ritz ' Tearooms, Colombo Street. The action 5 arose from a mishap which occurred last ' winter. The girl was leaning over the * counter taking cash from a customer when her apron was set on fire by an electric ' radiator placed on a shelf under the counter. She was very badly burned be- ' fore the flames could be extinguished and spent eight months in hospital. Plaintiff was Rita Gatehouse, of Woolston, and de- ' fendant was Herbert Benjamin Manttan, restaurant proprietor, of Woolston. In her statement of claim plaintiff said she underwent operations for skin grafting and since her discharge from the hospital on February 3, 1927, she had attended daily at the hospital massage department. As the result of the accident plaintiff was disfigured seriously about the face, arms ( and body, and her right arm and hand were almost useless. She was no longer able to carry on her occupation of a waitress and her earning capacity was substantially reduced. She claimed from defendant £3OOO general damages and £lßl special damages, for hospital expenses and for clothing destroyed. In the statement of defence it was claimed that the radiator used was safe and proper and was an ordinary type of commercial radiator. Further, defendant claimed that the accident was due to the negligence of plaintiff in permitting her clothing to come uito contact with the : heater or the elements. Defendant was now and had been always willing to pay compensation ascertained under the prol visions of the Workers' Compensation Act, 1922. and had paid plaintiff amounts due to her under that Act. Upon the conclusion of evidence for the plaintiff, Mr. A. T. Donnelly, for the defendant, moved for a nonsuit on the grounds that the claims in the allegations had not been supported. The position, he said, was that danger from fire was commonly known, and in view of the evidence for the plaintiff the case must faiL His Honor reserved the question of the nonsuit. Defendant, in evidence, said the girls had not been told to place the radiator under the counter. Evidence was concluded and the addresses of counsel were adjourned until Monday. ,