WORKER IN THE RAIN.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXV, Issue 19940, 8 May 1928, Page 12

WORKER IN THE RAIN.

SUBSEQUENT ILL-HEALTH. COMPENSATION CLAIM FAILS. NOT AN INJURY BY ACCIDENT. Holding that the development of an illness through exposure to rain in the course of employment could not be regarded as an accident within the meaning of the Workers' Compensation Act, Mr. Justice Frazer disallowed a claim for compensation based on such grounds, in a reserved judgment given in the Arbitration Court yesterday. The case was one in which Harry Brosand, a painter (Mr. Fleming), claimed from the Northern Steamship Company, Limited (Mr. Cocker), compensation for time lost and medical expenses incurred when he was incapacitated for two weeks with muscular rheumatism. He alleged the complaint whs due to exposure while engaged in ship painting for the company. His Honor said tlio admitted facts were that plaintiff was employed on December 6 cleaning the hull of the Rangitoto in Calliope Dock. He became wet through owing to a shower of rain, but continued working for about five hours in his wet clothes. On December 9 plaintiff was employed in cleaning and painting the hull of the Arapawa, another vessel belonging to the defendant company. The Arapawa had been beached at Onehunga, and the plaintiff had to work with his feet embedded in wet sand and mud. His condition was aggravated and he was subsequently unable to work for over two weeks.

"Mr. Fleming, for plaintiff, argued that an illness contracted in such a manner was an injury by . accident," continued His Honor. "Ho cited several cases, in all of which the plaintiffs were awarded compensation, but the circumstances of each case disclosed something that was in the nature of an accident —that is, a sudden and unexpected happening; an unlooked-for mishap or untoward event. "In the present case plaintiff was not exposed to any greater risk than any other person who was working in the rain, or than any other person who was working in a damp place. It was a risk that was shared by thousands of others, and a risk to which many people are frequently exposed. What happened to the plaintiff cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be described, in either the legal or the popular sense, as an injury by accident a ' ing out of his employment." Judgment was given for the defendant compa|jy, with leave to apply for costs.