INFECTIOUS DISEASE

New Zealand Times, Volume L, Issue 11653, 18 October 1923, Page 4

INFECTIOUS DISEASE

CONTRACTED BY WORKER, LIABILITY. OF EMPLOYERS. .QUESTION BEFORE. THE APPEAL COURT. T'be Appeal Court, consisting of Mr Justice H<?sking (presiding), Mr Justice Herdman, Mr Justice Salmppd. ? v nd ill* Justice Reed, were occupied yesterday in hearing a motion for a pew trial, or that the> plaintiff be nonsuited and jiidgment be entered for t-lio defendant, in a matter- that was before the Supreme Court in Wellington some time ago. The plaintiff in the case is a waterside worker named. John Baldwin Adams, represented by Mr M. Myers, K.C., with whom appeared Mr 0. C. Mazengarb, while the Wellington Pa- | tent Slip Co., Ltd., the defendants in ! the action, wero represented by Mr O. ! A. L. Treadwell. Adams had been employed by the defendant company to handle certain goods, including mattreeees, sent from a vessel for reconditioning purposes, and it was submitted that he had contracted a certain infectious disease in this connection, and accordingly dam ages were claimed- The matter cauie before Mr Justice Salmond and a jury. The latter awarded Adams the sum of £427 10s. 'The defendant company denied the contention put forward on behalf of the plaintiff. It was submitted by Mr Tieadwoll that there had been dq evi dcr.ee that the plaintiff had contracted this disease from the bedding. As a fttaond defence it was put forward that even if he. had .contracted the disease through handling the bedding as suggested, there was no evidence of any negligence on tho part of the defendant company, It was contended that they were entitled to have the plaintiff non-suited under the circumstan ces. Tho motion for a new trial was or, the ground that the verdict returned by the jury was against tho weight of evidence at the trial. It was submitted on behalf of the plaintiff that it was clearly the dutv of the defendant company to sterili.se this bedding, and so save any employee running the risk of contracting any infectious disease. Mr Justice Salmond: The laundry and upholstering work were done in the same building? Mr Mozeqgarb said that was the case. Argument was heard at length, but was not concluded whlen the court rose. Further argument by Mr Myers, for the plaintiff, will he proceeded with this morning.