INJURIES TO WORKERS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIX, Issue 21233, 13 July 1932, Page 10

INJURIES TO WORKERS.

HAWKE'S BAY EARTHQUAKE.

APPEAL TO PRIVY COUNCIL.

LEAVE GRANTED BY COURT.

[by telegraph.—press association.] WELLINGTON. Tuesday.

The Court of Appeal to-day granted leave to all of the parties concerned in the case, Thomas Borthwick and - Sons (Australasia), Limited, against John Ryan, and others, to appeal to the Privy Council from the judgment of tho Court of Appeal delivered last year.

These cases involved claims for compensation in respect of persons killed during the Hawke's Bay earthquake.

The Court of Appeal gave a majority decision in favour of the employers last December, when it held, in answer to a question raised by originating summonses, that injuries suffered by four men —leading in two cases to death —in the Hawke's Bay earthquake did not come within the meaning of "accidents" in the Workers' Compensation Act, as arising out of the employment of the men. Tho cases were typical of many which happened to workers in Hawke's Bay on the day of the earthquake. The parties in the four cases, which were consolidated for the purpose of legal argument, were: Thomas Borthwick and Sons (Australasia), Limited, v. John Ryan; Nelsons (N.Z.), Limited, v. John Prendergast; Thomas James Brennan and Charles Fenton Manning v. Philomena Mary Ashwell; and Thomas Borthwick and Sons (.Australasia), Limited, v. Margaret Brooker. 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 wag employed by Nelsons as a shepherd and was injured and disabled for 14 weeks. Ryan, a slaughterman, was actually killing when the earthquake took place and his injuries were so great that ho had since been unable to work.

In delivering judgment, the Chief "Justice, Sir Michael Myers, said the accident which caused the injuries did not arise out of employment, on tho ground that the injuries were caused by a general catastrophe and that all persons within the area affected by the earthquake were exposed to the same risk. Tho facts did not show any special cxposuro _to risk by the injured workers due to incidents of their employment. Mr. Justice Ostler, Mr. Justice Adams and"Mr. Justice Smith agreed with the Chief Justice. Mr. Justice Reed, in a separate judgment, stated tliat the fact that the contributing cause of the injuries was the earthquake did not of itself prevent injured workers recovering compensation under the Act.