COMPENSATION PROBLEM.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVIII, Issue 20993, 2 October 1931, Page 10

COMPENSATION PROBLEM.

INJURIES TO WORKERS. EARTHQUAKE AFTERMATH. QUESTION OF LIABILITY.APPEAL COURT PROCEEDINGS. [BY TELEGRAPH.—PRESS ASSOCIATION.] WELLINGTON, Thursday. Legal argument was continued to-day before the Court of Appeal in respect of interesting questions relative to workers' compensation law arising out of the llawke's Bay earthquake. The plaintiff in tho first case was Thomas Borthwick and Sons (Aus.), Limited, and the defendant John Ryan, a slaughterman, of Hastings. The plaintiff company seeks by virtue of the Declaratory Judgments Act answers to the questions whether the injury received by Ryan was "an accident" within the meaning of the Workers' Compensation Act, 1922, and if so whether the accident arose out of, and in the course of, his employment. On the answers to these questions depends the liability of the company to pay compensation. Other Similar Cases. Similar questions are being asked in the cases of Borthwick and Sons (Aus.), Limited, versus Margaret Brooker; Brennan and Manning (Napier), hotel keepers, versus Philomena Mary Ashwell; and Nelson (N.Z.), Limited, versus John Prendorgast, which are being heard at tho same time. Mrs. Brooker's husband was working at the Paki Paki works and was killed by falling debris. Mrs. Ashwell's husband was a porter employed at the Clarendon Hotel, Napier, and was killed by the falling building while on a message for his employers. Prendergast was employed by Nelson (N.Z.), Limited, as a shepherd at Tomoana, and was injured and disabled for 14 weeks. It was admitted that the defendants came within the definition of "worker" in the Workers' Compensation Act, 1922, and when they were injured they were acting in the course of their employment, but ifc was contended for the plaintiffs that their injuries did not ariso out of or in tho course of their employment, and therefore the plaintiffs were not liable to pay compensation. Efficient Cause of Injury. Continuing argument for the plaintiff in tho first case, Mr. A. H, Johnstone said no one ever contemplated, and least of all the framers of the Workers' Compensation Act, that an employer should be held liable for Injuries caused to an employee by an earthquake of such intensity as the Hawke's Bay earthquake. For purposes of liability under tho Statute it was necessary to find an efficient cause of injury and it was counsel's submission in this case that the efficient causa was the earthquake.

Mr. O'Leary, in support, said he adopted the arguments of counsel who preceded him. In addition, he submitted that it could not be maintained that because these buildings collapsed they wero inherently dangerous. In a large earthquake area like Hawke's Bay every spot was equally dangerous. Consequently there was no locality risk. Prendergast's case was not different from the others and his occupation at the time of the earthquake was not unusually dangerous. Mr. Cooke, in further support, said that previous legal authority had no application to a disaster such as the Hawke's Bay earthquake, which overtakes a whole community and does not confine its operations to one particular spot. Case for Defendants. Mr. O'Eegan, in opening the caso for the defendants, said he was faced with the task of replying to formidable arguments and intimat-ed that his argument would be fairly long. He presented three submissions for the consideration of the Court. The first was that the Workers' Compensation Act and cases, thereunder had given no meaning to the word "accident" that it did not possess before the Act was passed. The second was that if a case be otherwise within the Workers' Compensation Act, the fact that the origin of tlie accident was thunderstorm, gale or earthquake was irrelevant. The third submission was that every person who was at work on the day of (lie earthquake in a building,, quarry, gravel pit, street, or highway was exposed to a locality risk, and if killed or injured by accident the case was within the statute. Answering the Chief Justice, Sir Michael Myers, Mr. o'T?egan said that every worker who in the course of his employment was injured during the earthquake was entitled to compensation. Mr. Ltirkie, in support, said the deceased husband of his client, Mrs. Ashwell, was employed as a porter of the Clarendon Hotel, Napier, and was killed while on a message along Hastings Street for his employers. '1 lie risk arose immediately out of his employment. Counsel submitted that the risk to which workers in Napier wero subject was not a community risk common to all mankind, but a risk limited to those who worked in brick buildings. The risk did not depend on the earthquake alone, but on the earthquake plus brick buildings. The Court adjourned until to-morrow.