FINGERS AMPUTATED.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVII, Issue 20623, 23 July 1930, Page 17

FINGERS AMPUTATED.

BOY'S FIRST DAY AT WORK.

CLAIM AGAINST BUTCHER.

SUM OF OVER £6OO AWARDED. The misfortune of a boy who lost the thumb and all the fingers of his right, hand on the fust day of his employment was the subject of a claim heard by the Arbitration Court yesterday. The claimant was Maurice Austin Mason, aged 15 (Mr. Burt), who sought compensation from his employer, Hen 17 T. Head, butcher, of Mount Eden (Mr. Sellar). On February 3 last the boy was mincing meat for sausages when ho overbalanced and his right hand became entangled in the mincing machine, with the result that the thumb ami fingers were amputated. The Court was asked to fix the amount of compensation payable by defendant to plaintiff.

Mr. Burt said the boy had not received any wages, and lie was employed on tlio morning of the accident for tlie first time. After the bov had been delivering meat lie was introduced to the mincing machine, and Mr. Head explained tho working of it. When the meat was practically finished the boy leaned over to pick up pome stray pieces, overbalanced on tho slippery concrete floov and his hand went into the machino with disastrous results. Using a Mincing Machine. Plaintiff said that on tho morning of his first employment he delivered meat for most of the morning. At Mr. Head's request he returned in the afternoon to mirtre meat for him. Witness put through the whole of the meat given him about five times, this taking about, an hour. He was just finishing with the machino when the accident happened. Answering Mr. Sellar plaintiff said Mr. Read had told him to use a plunger and not to use his hands in pushing meat into the bowl of the machine.

Tom Mason, aged 13, a younger brother of the plaintiff, said ho h;id been employed by the defendant last December and January. 110 delivered meat for defendant and did mincing after the second day of his employment. He adjusted the machine himself after defendant had shown him how fo do it.

Evidence that the defendant had told her that'Jier boy had been doing tiie mincing and caught his hand was given by Mrs. Ivy Clara Mason, mother of the plaintiff. The defendant showed her what she took to be a receipt for insurance, and undertook to pay the doctor. Ho said he thought the insurance would run up to about £SOO. Similar evidence was given by Alfred George Mason, the boy's father. He said that if Maurice got the job witness intended that he should carry on as a butcher. Case For The Defence. Mr. Sellar said there were two possible defences. The first was that the employment was an illegal one under the Factories Ac(. but lie did not intend to raise that defence. The defence ho would put forward was that the accident did not arise out of or in the course of the employment. The defendant said that Maurice Mason had started work to run messages, and lie assisted defendant in cutting meat. Defendant took precautions to warn the hoy never to use his bare hands to put meat into tbo sausage machine. lfe did not expect a boy to look after tlie machine on his first morning. Xo wages had been fixed. Defendant fully expected the boy would receive compensation from insurance.

In awarding compensation, His Honor said tho boy had lold a perfectly plain, straightforward story which hud been corroborated. Tho defendant had Wt (lie boy doing the work, and assumed that he would carry on. There was nothing in the evidence from which the Court could assume that the boy was doing anything that he should not have done, or that he was committing any breach of instructions. Ho was doing a job he had been instructed to do, and it had been clearly made out that ho was entitled to compensation. Plaintiff would receive 70 per cent, compensation for the full period of liability, calculated on the basis of £3 3s 4d for total incapacity. This would be commuted according to scale and paid to the public trustee. It was found to amount U> £53 for back payments, and £559 for the, commuted value of future payments, making ,a- total of £612. Plaintiff was also allowed £lO 10s costs and witnesses' expenses. Tho Court directed thjt £2O should be paid over to the father.