RELIEF WORKERS’ CLAIM

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22057, 13 September 1933, Page 2

RELIEF WORKERS’ CLAIM

COMPENSATION SOUGHT INTERESTING POINTS INVOLVED. A case of interest to local bodies controlling unemployment relief was heard in the Magistrate’s Court yesterday when Alexander Clark, of Wylie’s Crossing, claimed from the Mosgiel Borough Council compensation for an injury. The claim was laid under the Workers’ Compensation Act, and the plaintiff sought weekly payments at the rate of fl 2s lOd as from August 22, 1932. medical expenses (£1), and such other relief as the court thought (it, provided that the total damages should not exceed £SO. Though other points were raised, the main questions at issue was whether the defendant council had been the employer of the plaintiff. Mr B. A. Quelch appeared for the plaintiff and Mr E. J. Anderson for the defendant. In opening his case Mr Quelch said that the plaintiff at the time of the accident (July of last year) was a relief worker employed by the Mosgiel Borough Council at the North Taieri Aerodrome. While a hedge was being removed a thorn entered the plaintiff’s right thumb. Later blood poisoning set in, and the plaintiff called in a doctor. He was sent to the Dunedin Hospital in a serious condition, and lingered between life and death for two or three months. At length the hand healed, but it afterwards proved to be useless «

Evidence was given by the plaintiff, who was questioned at length by Mr Anderson with respect to letters sent by the plaintiff’s solicitor to the Otago Aero Club claiming compensation. Frederick Charles Smeaton said that he was a foreman in charge of relief workers at the time of the accident. He was appointed by the Mosgiel Borough Council. He remembered removing a thorn from Clark’s thumb. So far as the actual work was concerned at the time ho looked upon Mr Olsen, of the Aero Club, as his principal. He was paid by the Mosaic! Borough, which lie looked upon as his employer. Mr Anderson stated that he wished to raise three non-suit points. In the first place, Clark did not regard the Mosgiel Borough Council as his employer. It was clear that his attiude had been that the Otago Aero Chib was his employer. In fact, on May 24 he went so far as to ask the chib’s insurance company for an ex gratia payment. Though in January last the. plaintiff issued a summons against the Borough Council, it was not served for six months. During all that time he wa,s negotiating with the Aero Club. ' The position was that the Unemployment Board’s money must be paid through a local body, and that was how the Borough Council came into the matter. It exercised no control. Mr Anderson also claimed that notice of the accident was given too late. The council had no idea of how the accident happened, and had no opportunity of checking Clark’s statements. The first the council heard of the matter was in January last, w'hereas the accident was said to have occurred in the previous July. The third point which he wished to raise was an unusual one. There was no question that the plaintiff had suffered an unfortunate injury. It was, indeed, a grave injury, and the claim should have been brought in the Arbitration Court. [Jo that the case could be heard in the Magistrate’s Court, any claim for damages in excess of £SO had been abandoned. The loss of the use of a hand, however, was regarded as an 80 per cent, disability, and if a claim were established in the Arbitration Court the damages payable would be much larger. It was clear that the Aero Club had insured these relief workers. If the club did not consider these men its employees it was strange that it should go to the trouble of insuring them. Mr Quelch claimed that the work was carried out by men under the control of a foreman employed by the Mosgiel Borough Council. The magistrate (Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M.) stated that he was not prepared to grant a non-suit at the present stage. The position with respect to the employer was not clear, but a local body might be a statutory employer, although it might obtain indemnities from other bodies. The second point must certainly be considered. His Worship described the third point as a serious one. It would be an extraordinary thing, he said, if the Magistrate’s Court could entertain a claim because it was reduced to a certain amount when the amount of compensation payable if the claim were established would he clearly a matter for the Arbitration Court. The case was adjourned sine die so that the evidence of the clerk of the Borough Council could be heard.