WORKER'S CLAIM

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXIV, Issue 22775, 8 July 1937, Page 16

WORKER'S CLAIM

ACCIDENT SEQUEL LIMITATION OF DAMAGES NEW ACT NOT -RETROSPECTIVE SUPREME COURT DECISION A decision that section 18 of the Law Reform Act, 1936, is not retrospective and that the damages recoverable in the case submitted to him are limited to £IOOO, was given in the Supreme Court yesterday by Mr. Justice Reed. The question of law involved was argued before him last week. The plaintiff was Alfred Joseph Dagnall (Mr. Sullivan) and the defendant Huddart Parker, Limited (Mr. Elliot), from whom the plaintiff is seeking damages on account of an accident.

The relevant facts. His Honor said, were that on June 20, 1935, the plaintiff, while in the employment of the defendant company, was injured owing to the alleged negligence of a fellow servant. The law governing claims at common law for injury caused by the negligence of a fellow servant was, on the date the injury was suffered, the Worker's Compensation Act, 1922, of which section 67 imposed a limitation on such a claim of £IOOO. Section Eepealed Last Year That section was repealed by the Law Reform Act, 1936, which came into force on September 18, 1936. The writ in the case was issued on March 24, 1937, and claims £2597 12s, and the statement of defence, in effect, raises the question as to whether the claim should not be limited to £IOOO in accordance with the statute in force at the time of the injury.

After examining tho authorities His Honor said that by the statute in force when the accident occurred, tho liability of an employer for damages for injuries sustained in the circumstances claimed was limited to £IOOO. On that basis the employer would havo insured his servant and paid tho requisite premium. Coukl it be presumed that Parliament had deliberately imposed the increased liability on an employer for all accidents, when fellow servants were at fault, that had happened for six years before the amending Act was passed, a liability against which he could have made no incurable provision, and tho result of which might well mean his financial ruin? Position Not Changed

Out of respect to the legislature, said His Honor, the presumption was directly to- the contrary. The position really was that when the plaintiff was injured he immediately became vested with a righb to recover damages to an amount not exceeding £IOOO, and, at the 6ame point of time, the defendant came under an obligation to pay up to £IOOO. Neither the right nor the obligation Could bo impaired, by subsequent legislation unless by clear and unequivocal enactment. Tho amending statute contained no such provision. "I am of opinion," said His Honor, "that tho statute is not retrospective, and that tho damages recoverable by the plaintiff are limited to £1000." Costs were fyced at £lO 10s and disbursements.