DISASTER SEQUEL

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXX, Issue 21503, 29 May 1933, Page 10

DISASTER SEQUEL

COMPENSATION SETTLED claims totalling £9OOO NAPIER LAUNCH TRAGEDY TRIBUTE TO OWNER'S FAIRNESS r ß v telegraph—own correspondent] L NAPIER, Saturday Judgment totalling fOOOO was given by Mr. Justice Ostler ui the Suprem Surt to-day against - wick, owner of the launch ° was concerned in tho inner harbour disaster on -.December 27 last. The sel sank after a collision when return incr with a load of waterside workers who had been engaged hi loading an overseas vessiel in the Napier roadstead. Ten men lost their lives. _ Widows and dependants of eight victims of the disaster, through Mr. P. J O'Regan, had tho following claims :—Mabel Kitt and George Kitt, relatives of Thomas Ridley Kitt, deceased, £1000; Edith Mary Aplm (four children under 15), £1250; Florence Cooper (four children), £12o0); Alesha Agnes Andrew (two children), £1200; Isabella Boyd (one child), £1150; Hannah Medcalf (one child), £1150; Christina Johnston, £1000; Elizabeth Woods, £IOOO. These sum» were in addition to £I2OO granted to Janet Mackie low and children yesterday.

Defect in Law Alleged In thoso cases whore the claimants have children, one-third of each amount is to bo allocated to the widows and two-thirds is to bo paid to the Guardian Trust and Executors Company of Isew Zealand for the benefit of the children. Income from the money is to be paid to the widows until the youngest child reaches the ago of 21 years?, after which the fund will be distributed, Mr. O'Regan asked the indulgence of the Court to mention a fact which indicated the need for an. .amendment to the law. Mr. Fcnwick, the employer, was one of tho victims of tho disaster, in that he was in the launch at tho time, but luckily ho got ashore safely. Had ho lost his life there would have been no right of action independent of the Workers' Compensation Act, and the proceedings now beforo the Court would have been impossible. The reason was that the Desiths by Accident Compensation Act, .1908, a transcript of tho English Fata], Accidents Act, 1846, had left unredressed what counsel would call a deficiency in common law, in that, if a defendant died before judgment was obtained, no right action lay. The right of action really died with him. This point had been illustrated by a motor collision on the Hutt Road, when an owner-driver wan, killed, and tho Court held this his estate was not liable, notwithstanding thai; it was sued pursuant to the Motor Vehicles (Third. Party Risk) Act, 1928. Counsel thought it advisable to mention the fact so His Honor might direct the attention of the powers that bo to tho point with a view to having an amendment made.

" Good Slense on Both Sides " His Honor, in reply, stated that under the Workers' Compensation Act redress would not be affected by the death of an employer. Counsel agreed. His Honor said the defect in common law, if it was a defect, must have existed for a very long time, Mr. O'Regan said he would like to take the opportunity of stating that Mr. A. E. Lawry, who ji.ppeared for Fen wick, had acted most fairly in consideration of the claims, and he wished to point out that Fenwick had paid funeral expenses, totalling £lB5, which he was not legally bound to pay. Mr. Lawry said that Mr. O'Regan was generous in stating that the defendant Fenwick had met the position handsomely. The question was one of great public interest and the defendant had felt he was in duty bound to meet tho claims in that way. Mr. Lawry added that there still remained a substantial amount of money subscribed by the public available for the dependants. With settlements arrived at Fenwick was gratified to think there was no fear of destitution arising out of the disaster. is gratifying to see good sense used in settling these casern," said His Honor. " I think the matter has been settled not only by good sense on one side, but by good sense on both sides."